A rule against copyrighting AI art will be unworkable.

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?

  • Hello_there@kbin.social
    3·
    11 months ago

    The moment that copyright is granted to AI art is the moment that the war against corporations loses. Getty images is just going to generate endless images, copyright them all, and sue any small artist that starts having an independent thought

    • moon_matter@kbin.social
      1·
      11 months ago

      All of the discussion over copyright of AI is a complete waste of time. Given only a bit of human editing AI art is indistinguishable from art made in entirety by a person. It will be nothing but a “feel good” law that does nothing to help the artists AI has displaced. We should be focusing directly on helping artists or others maintain their livelihood.

  • taanegl@beehaw.org
    1·
    11 months ago

    The comparison between photography and AI generated images falls flat on its face when you think about it.

    A camera requires not only human interaction, but going some place, setting up and having to process the image after the fact.

    Contrast that with an AI farm constantly generating and squeezing out copyrightable material while scraping the web for any human made work it can emulate.

    In the end what it will mean is that certain companies will be fuzzing the hell out of the copyright system to gain as much intellectual property as possible while diminishing the creative possibility of human beings.

    It is in effect just a way to make companies richer and remove creative jobs from the market. Anybody who doesn’t see that is naive.

    BUT I think that in cases of that image you should be able to apply for copyright. But just automatically getting it, as is the law in many countries? No. That’s a really bad idea.

  • Paragone@beehaw.org
    1·
    10 months ago

    There is an error that many in the dispute are making…

    Imagine that BORG-AI is an ai that was trained ONLY on GPL2 program-code…

    Imagine that you use it to fill-in some functions in your codebase…

    What sort of copyright-status should be on those??

    I say they should be GPL2, and they should be considered derivative of the ENTIRE training-data-set.

    That doesn’t mean I think that the BORG-AI should be a copyright holder, though!

    I’m saying that there should be a NEW category, between uncopyrighted & copyrighted, and that the training-sets need to be segregated by license, so that derivatives CAN know what their legal licensing-status is.

    GPL2, GPL3, BSD, LGPL2, whatever… it needs to be consistent within the training-data-set, so that the derivative of THAT module/expert can be having the same license, see?