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?

  • Lvxferre
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    The dice didn’t make the eyes, after all.

    And arguably, neither the image generator did. Who did were the artists of the works being fed into the model. In this sense, the analogy is like the artist picking an eye from some random picture and, based on the output of the dice, resizing it to 21mm.

    you can answer “I decided to do what the dice asked”.

    The same reasoning still applies to Stable Diffusion etc., given that you can heavily tweak the output through your prompt. And you can also prompt the program to generate multiple images, and consciously pick one of them.

    • @FlowVoid@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And arguably, neither the image generator did. Who did were the artists

      In which case, neither the image generator nor its operator are eligible for copyright.

      The same reasoning still applies to Stable Diffusion etc., given that you can heavily tweak the output through your prompt.

      The point is that the AI generator (or, if you prefer, its training data) exercised direct control over the image, not you. Providing additional prompts does not change this, just as rerolling the dice wouldn’t make the dice the author.

      For that matter, gives extensive prompts or other artistic direction to a human artist would not make you eligible for copyright, either. Even if the artist was heavily influenced by your suggestions.

      Finally, choosing one among many completed works is not a creative process, even if it requires artistic judgment. Choosing repeatedly does not transform it into a creative process. That’s why choosing your favorite song does not mean you are a song creator.