Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

duboispourlhiver t1_j9piugz wrote

Reply to comment by gameryamen in US Copyright Office: You Can't Copyright Images Generated Using AI by vadhavaniyafaijan

>The decision goes pretty deep into whether prompts or subsequent editing are sufficient to qualify the images as creative, concluding that they aren't.

They decided that prompts are not sufficient, but subsequent editing can be. See page 9 of the document for an exemple of minor subsequent change not representing authoring work, and page 10 for this important paragraph :

>Based on Ms. Kashtanova’s description, the Office cannot determine what expression in the image was contributed through her use of Photoshop as opposed to generated by Midjourney.
She suggests that Photoshop was used to modify an intermediate image by Midjourney to “show[] aging of the face,” but it is unclear whether she manually edited the youthful face in a previous intermediate image, created a composite image using a previously generated image of an older woman, or did something else. To the extent that Ms. Kashtanova made substantive edits to an intermediate image generated by Midjourney, those edits could provide human authorship and would not be excluded from the new registration certificate.

So, USCO clearly states that substantive edits to an image generated by AI can create copyrightability.

9

throwaway-clonewars t1_j9t4uxr wrote

This is exactly how I think AI for art should be used: the person gets an image made, works as an editor to pick the best, then works as an artist to make a substantial number of edits to the piece so it's something new I'm the end.

The image would basically act as a starting point to jump from, like how concept art or "refined" thumbnails is used as the basis of things in all visual art forms. Or how people painting over old paintings works (my favorite was a person painting Smaug or some dragon setting fire to everything over a landscape piece of London)

Using images straight out the machine and attempting copyright- considering copyright is associated with making money- is where I disagree. In part from how it uses other artists work to make the image- it has to pull the visual styles from somewhere even if it's not copy pasting sections- as well as the fact that there's no human hand in its creation (prompts only count so far, because tons of people can use the same/similar prompt and end up with different finals)

(To me it's almost like pointing at something in nature and saying "I'm claiming this as solely mine, no one can have anything similar. I dont care if theres millions upon millions out there" when it's like a seashell or something pretty but dumb like that)

3

duboispourlhiver t1_j9t591j wrote

I agree with you on most points. I'd go further and say, from your last paragraph, that it seems weird to me to point at something one has produced himself and say "I'm claiming this as solely mine, no on can have anything similar". I'd abolish all copyright law, personally.

1

throwaway-clonewars t1_j9t6xwr wrote

I can understand it to a point, mainly as an artist and writer. Personally, I'd have no issue with people using my works as inspiration or creating fan works/parodies/satire associated with either or using similar to almost identical character/creatures etc in my original works. The issue comes up though is association. Theres things I don't want to have my work associated with (namely politics/current issues) so copyright would allow me to limit those who might use it in such associations (if they're being jerks on purpose about it, purposefully going against my wishes).

Same with how disney is super on target with their copyright because they don't want anything not "family friendly" associated with their brand while they retain control. They do take thing rather far though to the "no one can" side which I disagree with- especially when (as it's happened before) they essentially use smaller creators as product testers then hit with a copyright claim and turn around to sell near identical products they had removed.

As for specific copyright of an image/book, if I make it and am selling it myself, I'd definitely copyright it becuase (while not the intention when making it) its a way to support myself and future creations. As much and common as people say "it's for passion/fun you should do it for free/give it away for free" the time and supplies ain't that so it's gotta be funded somehow. In that instance I wouldn't be ok with someone taking it and sharing it where I haven't myself done so- be it for attention (karma farming and such, considering its rare for people to back track to the original creator from posts if theres credit given) or "easy money" such as uploading on Chinese sites and losting for cheap to send out as many as possible (as often happens with popular artworks).

If I'm not selling it, I do agree that a copyright doesn't really make sense and is over the top to do. (Unless of course there's a legitimate fear some else would file a false copyright license and try to outright steal legal rights from me/the original creator- seen some horror stories of people with horrible exes who try this with work they made while with them)

All that said, I majorly create for myself and share so I often am not putting myself in a position for need to copyright. (I do have works I'm doing specifically to sell so those would be a bit more "this is mine, you can have if you pay", but as of the current everything has been for passion and thus I'm on the "feel free to use" side.)

2

duboispourlhiver t1_j9tfsp3 wrote

Thank you for this long and interesting point of view.

I think that without copyright, creative work can still be a source of income thanks to work for hire and crowdfunding. I've aligned my actions with my anti copyright beliefs for years and am only getting money in the form of work for hire. I feel more relaxed this way. But other opinions and ways of life are completely ok.

2