I’ve generally been against giving AI works copyright, but this article presented what I felt were compelling arguments for why I might be wrong. What do you think?

  • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    You make a fair point but as I said people keep focusing only on prompts. So when people see the takeaway that “Oh AI art isn’t copyrightable” it means very little since noone in an actual industry is going to give out a raw render (well they shouldn’t). So that is why I pointed out other tools in AI art. Like inpainting and img to img can easily make it or break how much we influence the AI. You are still using all the AI besides scribbling on paint on top of your raw then rerendering it.

    Most of these court cases are primarily on prompt only images. So yes, its great we have the line of well duh if an artist does “sufficient” touch ups its back to being but the question becomes what is sufficient. Would it be sufficient if you still used mostly AI tools especially ones that give the users far more control over what they are rendering (Going to focus mostly on SD since it gives far more versatility than most of its competitors) like if you only use image to image. You posted your own art and it does it thing and bing bang boom is it copyrightable? Img to img only, probably is a low bar and may not get over the hump to be copyrightable but inpainting probably has a far more likely chance to be since it can factor in many things that the “curator” is wanting.

    We are at a time when people are very hot on this topic. I just feel some artists are going a bit too insane with this, I understand their anxieties but its quite easy to lose sight and make draconian demands about this future especially the ones who are suggesting that you can copyright a style. Such suggestions are asinine and will hurt everyone including themselves.

    • greenskye@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      These are my thoughts as well. It seems obvious that putting in ‘cat with a silly hat’ as a prompt is basically the creative equivalent of googling for a picture.

      But, as you say, that sort of AI usage is just dumb, bottom tier usage. There’s going to someday be a major, critical piece of art that heavily uses AI assistance in it’s creation and people are going to be surprised that it’s somehow not copyrightable under the laws and rulings they’re working on now.

      I remember in the LOTR behind the scenes they talked about how WETA built a game l like software to simulate the massive battle scenes, giving each soldier a series of attacks and hp, etc. They then used this to build out the final CGI.

      Stuff like that has already been going on for ages and it’s only going to get more murky as to what ‘AI art’ even means and what is enough human creativity and editing added to the process to make it human created rather than AI created.

      • HelixTitan@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        A hand coded simulation in house is the definition of creative expression. Using a product to essentially Google an image is not, I don’t see how this is a hard distinction.

        Perfect example is Corridor Crews second anime battle video. Or Joel animation on YouTube. There is more to those than just using an AI to get an image of short video

        • millie@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          The distinction is that you need to actually use the product in a realistic use case before you can pass judgement on its use. You’re judging cameras on the basis of selfies. This thread is full of explicit examples of how actual artists use this to assist in their work. Please read that.

    • FlowVoid@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      The question “what is sufficient” basically amounts to convincing an official that the final work reflects some form of your creative expression.

      So for instance, if you are hired to take AI-generated output and crop it to a 29:10 image, that probably won’t be eligible for copyright. You aren’t expressing your creativity, you are doing something anyone else could do.

      On the other hand, if you take AI-generated output and edit it in photoshop to the point that everyone says “Hey, that looks like a ThunderingJerboa image”, then you would almost certainly be eligible for copyright.

      Everyone else falls in between, trying to convince someone that they are more like the latter case. Which is good, because it means actual artists will be rewarded.