Controversial AI art piece from 2022 lacks human authorship required for registration.

  • @paintbucketholder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31 year ago

    Well, that is assuming there’s no human editing of the results of the AI tool afterwards. There was heaps of it in the piece referenced in the article

    If there was, then the artist should have discussed those heaps of human editing that went into the creation of this piece of art, and he would have been granted a copyright.

    The fact that he refused to disclose what - if anything - was done after the AI spit out the result is what resulted in him not being granted copyright.

    • Skua
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      He did? This article mentions it only briefly, but he talked about it more when it was first getting attention for winning the competition. Is this something he did in the court case that you’ve read elsewhere?

      But also, if you used Midjourney at the time that the image was made, you’ll know that you did not get an image like that straight out of it

      • @paintbucketholder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        This wasn’t a court case.

        This was a copyright application.

        The Copyright Office asked him to provide them with an unedited version of the image generated by Midjourney in order to determine how much (human) work went into the final version.

        Allen refused to provide them with an unedited version, so the Copyright Office had no way to verify how much or how little work was actually done by the artist compared to work that was done by the AI, so they had to assume that the vast majority of the work was done without any human artistic contribution.

        They were essentially forced to reject his copyright application because he refused to provide evidence that he actually did any kind of creative artistic work.