Skip Navigation
Technology @lemmy.world
L4sBot @lemmy.world
BOT

Why This Award-Winning Piece of AI Art Can’t Be Copyrighted

Why This Award-Winning Piece of AI Art Can’t Be Copyrighted::Matthew Allen’s AI art won first prize at the Colorado State Fair. But the US government has ruled it can’t be copyrighted because it’s too much “machine” and not enough “human.”

TechNews @radiation.party
WIRED

Why This Award-Winning Piece of AI Art Can’t Be Copyrighted

[WIRED] Why This Award-Winning Piece of AI Art Can’t Be Copyrighted
2 0
120 comments

  • Cool so ai art created from copyright input has no copyright cuz the input isn't considered part of the copyright.

    • It goes from the same idea that if you saw someone else's art and made your own art, the copyright of the new art would be yours, and not the one who inspired you.

      We've seen edge cases in the music industry (Ray Parker Jr.'s Ghostbusters vs. Huey Lewis and the News' Hip To Be Square I Want a New Drug ) though in most cases in music, artists routinely borrow each other's elements.

      The problem is that AI generative art still requires effort from the programmer (the one who prompted the AI) and went through process of telling it what to do, curating the output, running it back through the AI again to add new elements. If that process is sufficiently long, then it warrants copyright. If that process is insufficiently long, then it challenges the copyrightable merits of artists who make quick art.

      In my opinion (removed from the whole AI controversy) is that intellectual property law has been long abused, not by artists and creators but by publishers and studio owners who have used their landlord-esque positions to take control of most art, and then extend their IP rights while denying the public a robust public domain.

      And they are the ones that are going to ultimately be hurt by the death of IP laws. Artists will still do art, but for the sake of expression, and then it's a matter of the rest of society making sure they're not exhausted by their day-job (which, according to the strikers in Hollywood, they totally are).

      • In my opinion (removed from the whole AI controversy) is that intellectual property law has been long abused, not by artists and creators but by publishers and studio owners who have used their landlord-esque positions to take control of most art, and then extend their IP rights while denying the public a robust public domain.

        The idea that a strong public domain is beneficial to all culture has been lost. Now we have huge court cases because two different songs use a similar progression of notes. The point of copyright should be to motivate people to create more art, not prevent people from doing it.

        Take the whole Under Pressure/Vanilla Ice fiasco. Nobody listening to "Ice Ice Baby" is going to then say to themselves "great, now I never have to listen to Queen again". They are both very different songs in different genres, that use the same guitar riff.

        I understand why selling pirate DVD's should be illegal, for recently made movies that are still under print, but transforming a work should not be infringement.

      • It was I Want a New Drug, not It’s Hip to Be Square

      • I will shamelessly recycle my comment up the thread:

        The modern western conception of art (around which the current legal and economic systems were constructed) is really opposite to the idea that the current AI tools (OR the programmer that used them) should deserve any copyright.

        Why ? The concept of art (the modern western one) is that an Art piece is composed of :

        • 1 An Idea
        • 2 A form that is given to that idea by a human artist.

        The idea can be given by others, to be constructed by an artist. That is usually a Patron (from where Patreon invented its name) , in spanish Mecenas, that pays the work and directs what idea and even general form it will take (the social practice is called Mecenazgo in spanish, since english has no equivalent word, i will use that ). Example: The Sistine Chapel, which was conceptualized (and paid) by the Catholic Church, including themes and general style, and was given to italian artists like Michelangelo to give the final form, which they drew themselves, with the approval of the church authorities at the end.

        The current Ai tools work exacly like the Mecenazgo:

        • the human person (programmer or not) gives an input (textual, or other), the AI goes brrrrrr, and gives back an image. the person can take ir, or re-iterate the cycle with further inputs until satisfaction.
        • This is really analogous with how art production ocurred in the Mecenazgo: The human input is the step 1 (an idea), the AI does the step 2 (give form to the idea). The further inputs by humans is analogous to the rough drafts the artist had to give the Mecenas first, the Mecenas described in more details and specifications what themes and forms he wanted, and that repeated until the Mecenas was satisfied with the final form the artist gave back.

        The current copyright legal and economic system gives the intellectual property to the ARTIST, that made the step 2, and NOT to the Mecenas of the step 1. Because the Mecenas only had ideas, and the one who made what is considered artistic work, that deserves the legal privilege of IP, is the artist. If all someone did was tell the AI what to draw (i.e. gave an idea, general theme and general form), then the person is only acting as the Mecenas. The MACHINE is doing the artistic work, and since the machine is not a human that deserves the legal privilege, ir should be considered non copyrighted or public domain, just like the picture some monkey took of itself some years ago.

        This was not always nor everywhere the social interpretation of WHO is the agent that actually made the art. Before the Renaissance, the western societies considered the Mecenas of step 1 the TRUE ARTIST, because he-she had the idea, and the person that gave form to the idea was considered a low level construction worker like stonemasons, that did not even have its name recorded. If you are wiilling to go back there, we would have to fundamentally change our interpretation of art , artists and rewrite the Sistine Chapel as created by the Catholic Church , and michelangelo is irrelevant.

  • Funny situation indeed. Thoughts:

    1. Copyright is particularly artificial and openly amenable to change to suit the needs of the economy and creators it applies to. So treating this as open ended is probably necessary.
    2. Copyright has for a long time happily provided varying degrees of protection by recognising that one may hold copyright over a work but only over a “thin” or relatively minor aspect of the work.
    3. While there seems to be broader factors involved here regarding the power and market dynamics afforded artists and corporations should AI copyright be protected, there also seems to be plenty of scope to recognise that actual original work can be behind an AI work, however “thin” and distinct from the ordinary categories (eg Music, Literature etc) it may be. Indeed I would question how much the judges involved actually understand this enough.
    4. Does anyone know how this policy is tracking with or affected by policies in whether the AI engines themselves are infringing copyright?

  • While my thinking is in line with what @TheLobotomist@lemmy.world and @NateNate60@lemmy.ml have already said, why can't "AI artists" just do what everybody in a profit-seeking situation does and just lie about it? "No your honor, our studies have shown cigarette smoking is not hazardous to your health," "yes, your honor, OxyContin is completely safe," or in this case "yes, your honor, I created this illustration." If your conscience is really bothering you, you could claim it was AI-assisted. I wouldn't think there'd be a "Big Eyes" prove-you-painted-that courtroom case. Am I wrong?

120 comments