this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
32 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

20 readers
4 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!

founded 2 years ago
 

The U.S. Copyright Office has again rejected copyright protection for art created using artificial intelligence, denying a request by artist Jason M. Allen for a copyright covering an award-winning image he created with the generative AI system Midjourney.

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Narte@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago
[–] Xartle@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They totally should have used the image as the story photo

[–] MonsterHighStan@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

I don't know why they didn't! It's not like it's copyrighted ....

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

So, if he didn't tell he used AI it's probably copyrightable, but just because he revealed, it's not?

[–] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago
[–] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Give ownership rights to the AI just to piss them off.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Copyright is incompatible with AI, and they know it. If an image gets generated, who can be seen as the owner?

  • The person who wrote the prompt?

  • The AI who used its knowledge to generate the image?

  • The researcher who developed the AI?

  • The multiple artists on which the work is based?

Those Copyright Offices are on the precipice of being deemed useless. This is one of their final struggles to stay relevant.

[–] Ragnell@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Or the novelty of AI-created art will wear off and we'll go on with our lives.

[–] millie@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

At some point this is going to start bumping up against things like procedurally generated assets and adding filters or rendering textures in images. There's some point between adding programmed randomness to art and bringing an image back and forth between AI generation and adjustments on the one hand and traditional techniques on the other that our line has wider implications.

Personally, I suspect it probably has more to do with how the person submitting the copyright frames the issue than with any real line in the technology. Nobody's getting bent out of shape about shitty rendered Photoshop clouds because they aren't making the same claims.

It would be interesting to see someone try to register a copyright for an image created using fairly common filters and rendering techniques and frame it as AI generation obfuscated by specific technical technology that brings the idea to mind without actually misrepresenting it as stable diffusion or whatever.