this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
351 points (96.8% liked)

Technology

58303 readers
6 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Controversial AI art piece from 2022 lacks human authorship required for registration.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, that is assuming there's no human editing of the results of the AI tool afterwards. There was heaps of it in the piece referenced in the article

If there was, then the artist should have discussed those heaps of human editing that went into the creation of this piece of art, and he would have been granted a copyright.

The fact that he refused to disclose what - if anything - was done after the AI spit out the result is what resulted in him not being granted copyright.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He did? This article mentions it only briefly, but he talked about it more when it was first getting attention for winning the competition. Is this something he did in the court case that you've read elsewhere?

But also, if you used Midjourney at the time that the image was made, you'll know that you did not get an image like that straight out of it

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

This wasn't a court case.

This was a copyright application.

The Copyright Office asked him to provide them with an unedited version of the image generated by Midjourney in order to determine how much (human) work went into the final version.

Allen refused to provide them with an unedited version, so the Copyright Office had no way to verify how much or how little work was actually done by the artist compared to work that was done by the AI, so they had to assume that the vast majority of the work was done without any human artistic contribution.

They were essentially forced to reject his copyright application because he refused to provide evidence that he actually did any kind of creative artistic work.