Technology

Don't post the entire article in the OP, please. You'll end up getting C&D's sent to your instance admins if publishers keep seeing this, because it's - ironically enough in this context - copyright infringement.

Just post a snippet to stay within fair use. Don't ruin Lemmy for all of us over something so silly.

couldn't help but lol at this quote:

US copyright law is designed to adapt to the times.

seems a pretty easy solution here. just say you've written it.. no reliable software exists for proving text is AI generated.

This doesn't change much because of a simple difference: This was an AI product put in wholesale.

There was no human intervention in (visually) creating this product, thus no human can claim copyright.

Studios aren't gonna do this when replacing some of their writers, because AI may not be good enough yet. Instead, it'll be a smaller team, they'll do the edits, and they can claim copyright.

This only really matters If AI advances to the point where we can completely create a full movie or TV show from scratch with just purely prompting, which, currently, we can not.

It looks like the key in the ruling here was that the AI created the work without the participation of a human artist. Thaler tried to let his AI, "The Creativity Machine" register the copyright, and then claim that he owned it under the work for hire clause.

The case was ridiculous, to be honest. It was clearly designed as an attempt to give corporations building these AI's the copyrights to the work they generate from stealing the work of thousands of human artists. What's clever here is that they were also trying to sideline the human operators of AI prompts. If the AI, and not the human prompting it, owns the copyright, then the company that owns that AI owns the copyright - even if the human operator doesn't work for them.

You can see how open this interpretation would be to abuse by corporate owners of AI, and why Thaler brought the case, which was clearly designed to set a precedent that would allow any media company with an AI to cut out human content creators entirely.

The ruling is excellent, and I'm glad Judge Howell saw the nuances and the long term effects of her decision. I was particularly happy to see this part:

In March, the copyright office affirmed that most works generated by AI aren’t copyrightable but clarified that AI-assisted materials qualify for protection in certain instances. An application for a work created with the help of AI can support a copyright claim if a human “selected or arranged” it in a “sufficiently creative way that the resulting work constitutes an original work of authorship,” it said.

This protects a wide swath of artists who are doing incredible AI assisted work, without granting media companies a stranglehold on the output of the new technology.

That's great! It means artists can continue to use AI art for projects they don't intend to sell, and Hollywood, which already has too much power, still relies on others.

This limitation is too easy to get around. Have AI generate a picture. Take a photo of that picture and destroy the original. Copyright is now owned by the photographer. Have an AI write some music, change one note of that music and call in your arrangement of that piece, destroy the original music, and only your arrangement that you have a copyright on exists. etc.

Talk about an inaccurate headline. The conclusion here isn't that AI art can't be copyrighted, it's that AI cannot be a copyright holder. But it's AI, so we can't actually expect anyone to pull their head out of their ass and give it enough thought to write an article that isn't garbage.

Instead we have yet another thread about this case in which no one actually has any idea what the ruling was. Very informative.

You didn't create it so why the hell should you be able to copyright it?

The Judge is right. AI is not a living citizen.

Interesting that he filed the original copyright application as a work for hire situation. I guarantee he didn’t pay AI anything .

Good.

Give them time to lobby and get a friendlier judge and try again.

Some AI work is created with a simple prompt, but the best stuff uses lots of in painting and out painting and adjustments. That would be copyrightable, there's lots of human control beyond a prompt, there are lots of cool videos of the process on YouTube. By the time AI will be able to generate full processes, videos, storylines, voices, etc, without human intervention, we won't need the movie studios either. I'm hoping we reach that in 3 years.

So, if I use AI, then tweak it in photoshop, is us human created and now able to be copyrighted?