Readit News logoReadit News
jarsin commented on US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted   reuters.com/world/us/us-a... · Posted by u/rvz
protocolture · 5 months ago
Not really, thats covered well by:

"There may come a time when prompts can sufficiently control expressive elements in AI-generated outputs to reflect human authorship. If further advances in technology provide users with increased control over those expressive elements, a different conclusion may be called for"

Because any "advancement" in this space is predicated on getting tighter control over the requested outcome.

You can already script a local image generator to come up with random images based on text searches or LLM output. Thats already not copyrightable anywhere.

jarsin · 5 months ago
The "but" is literally in response to what you quoted.

For example if I code an entire application in c by myself without ai then told ai to redo the whole thing in rust I would retain copyright.

If you just prompt the same application from scratch and accept by in large the outputs. No copyrighht. This is how the vast majority are using it to create new systems not using it as a tool to enhance majority human generated code or images or books etc.

The more it creates from pure prompts the lesser chance you have to claim copyright.

jarsin commented on US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted   reuters.com/world/us/us-a... · Posted by u/rvz
protocolture · 5 months ago
It doesnt say that, it says that anything thats solely produced by simply prompting is not owned. I have seen very few works that want copyright and are solely prompts.

From your own link:

"“To be sure,” the Court further explained, “the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice."

"The Office agrees that there is an important distinction between using AI as a tool to assist in the creation of works and using AI as a stand-in for human creativity. "

"The Office concludes that, given current generally available technology, prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output. "

Where the US ruling differs from others:

"Repeatedly revising prompts does not change this analysis or provide a sufficient basis for claiming copyright in the output."

Where China has had 2 cases where it supported multiple prompt changes + watermark

Also they dont rule out a change:

"There may come a time when prompts can sufficiently control expressive elements in AI-generated outputs to reflect human authorship. If further advances in technology provide users with increased control over those expressive elements, a different conclusion may be called for"

^ I would (and have) suggested that the above would likely cover the masking tools available in most image generators.

Its certainly not a case that "AI generative outputs are not copyrightable".

jarsin · 5 months ago
You left out the big "but". But if ai gets more optimized and automated our current conclusion will be more bolstered.
jarsin commented on US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted   reuters.com/world/us/us-a... · Posted by u/rvz
jarsin · 5 months ago
This is old news. The copyright office already ruled that AI generative outputs are not copyrightable in January [1].

I think many have not understood the implications of the CO ruling. This means anything you build with llms you don't own. Your company doesn't own. If your using copilot and you have a copyright notice at the top of your source file if that ever goes to court you will learn that copyright is not valid. You cant even put an open source license on the output, like the GPL, because...drumroll...you don't own the copyright.

[1] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

jarsin commented on 'Dogequest' Site Claims to Dox Tesla Owners Across the U.S.   404media.co/dogequest-sit... · Posted by u/nickthegreek
dzhiurgis · 5 months ago
Far left and antifa always hated Tesla tho. But I also suspect antifa is just Russian trolls financed by oil money.
jarsin · 5 months ago
I put Antifa into a whole other category called, Terrorist.
jarsin commented on US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted   reuters.com/world/us/us-a... · Posted by u/rvz
ssalka · 5 months ago
I think the headline is overly broad, especially considering:

> As a matter of statutory law, the Copyright Act requires all work to be authored in the first instance by a human being. Dr. Thaler’s copyright registration application listed the Creativity Machine as the work’s sole author, even though the Creativity Machine is not a human being. As a result, the Copyright Office appropriately denied Dr. Thaler’s application.

It seems like Dr. Thaler's argument was just weak, since generative AI works often are authored in the first instance by a human being. For instance, any Midjourney or Stable Diffusion-generated image will be sourced from a prompt, which is typically written by a human. Anyone who has spent a little time trying to craft the perfect prompt knows there is a creative process therein that represents real work being done by a human. Similarly for img2img workflows, using a real photograph taken by a human. There, AI is only being used to transform a copyrightable input. Therefore such works – though certainly not all AI works – should be eligible for copyright, IMO.

jarsin · 5 months ago
The copyright office has already ruled recently that prompts are not enough to gain copyright no matter how detailed or how many iterations.

Furthermore, the Copyright Office stated that prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control, as AI models do not consistently follow instructions in the prompts and often "fill in the gaps" left by prompts and "generate multiple different outputs"

jarsin commented on 'Dogequest' Site Claims to Dox Tesla Owners Across the U.S.   404media.co/dogequest-sit... · Posted by u/nickthegreek
Jcampuzano2 · 5 months ago
So are we really going down the road of telling people "Hey just buy a new car" whenever yours is politically inconvenient?

The car already has low resale value, and if they did sell it it doesn't get it off the road. I do own one, and honestly I hate driving it around now because of the stigma but its the only car I have and while yes I could sell it at a massive loss thats both a lot of work and a waste of my time, effort, and money.

It was literally the first car I ever bought and was because I liked the convenience of EV's and for the environment. Now I feel like I'm being punished for it through no fault of my own and always have to look over my shoulders, and I don't even like Elon in the first place and never really cared for him.

jarsin · 5 months ago
What's crazy is this was always seen as a left wing car. If you drove one of these into small blue collar towns there is a chance you would have been harassed a few short years ago.
jarsin commented on The Great Tech Heist – How "Disruption" Became a Euphemism for Theft   joanwestenberg.com/the-gr... · Posted by u/cratermoon
jarsin · 5 months ago
You just had 4 years of Lina Khan who was suppose to be the hard liner anti big tech chair, yet basically did nothing by picking loser cases like atvi.

But sure blame Trump.

u/jarsin

KarmaCake day2975March 18, 2014View Original