this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
13 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
38230 readers
1110 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not anti-ai art, but I think that if IP laws exists, artist should be able to use them. Either AI art is considered public domain, or it should be certified as having been trained only on public/properly compensated work. I do think current IP laws are so out of date they're basically irrelevant, but artists should be able to enforce these archaic laws if they are subject to them.
Mind you, people will probably still pay 700k for the "original print" or whatever certified/signed by the person who generated it, but at least the work itself should be public.
AI art is not protected by copyright, yes. That isn't a "should" but rather how it actually works in nearly all countries but a few, certainly including the US.
This isn't true. You should read the latest guidance by the United States Copyright Office.
The CO didn't say AI generated works were copyrightable. In fact, the second part of the report very much affirmed their earlier decisions that AI generated content is necessarily not protected under copyright. What you are probably referring to is the discussion the Office presented about joint works style pieces--that is, where a human performed additional creative contributions to the AI generated material. In that case, the portions such that they were generated by the human contributor are protected under copyright as expected. Further, they made very clear that what constitutes creative contribution and thus gets coverage is determined on a case by case basis. None of this is all that surprising, nor does it refute the rule that AI generated material, having been authored by something other than a human, is not afforded any copyright protection whatsoever.
But they do, explicitly:
Yes, this is what I said. Situations where a work can conceivably considered co-authored by a human, those components get copyright. However, whether that activit constitutes contribution and how is demarcated across the work is a case by case basis. This doesn't mean any inpainting at all renders the whole work copyright protected--it means that it could in cases where it is so granular and directly corresponds to human decision making that it's effectively digital painting. This is probably a higher bar than most expect but, as is not atypical with copyright, is a largely case by case quantitative/adjudicated vibes-based determination.
The second situation you quoted is also standard and effectively stands for the fact that an ordered compilation of individually copyrighted works may itself have its own copyright in the work as a whole. This is not new and is common sense when you consider the way large creative media projects work.
Also worth mentioning that none of this obviates the requirement that registrations reasonably identify and describe the AI generated components of the work (presumably to effectively disclaim those portions). It will be interesting to see a defense raised that the holder failed to do so and so committed a fraud on the Copyright Office and thus lost their copyright in the work as a whole (a possible penalty for committing fraud on the Office).
You're moving the goalposts. Your original reply made no mention of co-authorship by a human, it was just one sweeping statement.
Correct, but they were stating that people should not support artists backing IP laws, and my lay understanding is that the only thing keeping it that way is IP laws. If we got rid of IP laws, I'm not sure individual artists would win. Large corporations would be able to produce at scale, and you'd get the same issue as with redbubble or whatever, but with legit companies instead of shady ones.