The irony of China being the leader in new copyright rules!
Interesting take how the way they judged it is by generating more images using the same model and prompt.
The new images were to different from the originals. Concluding that there was not enough user input to claim an intended design.
Its possible that if a prompt was well designed to almost always provide the same user intended concept that this ruling was different.
An additional interesting note is that the company did first contact them to make a deal but the negotiations failed.
The person was essentially trying to copyright a prompt.
Devils advocate (i am actually anti intellectual ownership).
How much words is the minimum for legal copyright? Because brand names and poems are.
I believe it might be possible however it wont exactly stop people from using the prompt. Results may be considered inspired rather then derivative.
Removed by mod
You might have misunderstood.
The output wouldn’t matter. You are not copyrighting an ai prompt. Your copyrighting a proclaimed poem that just happens to look like a prompt.
And when you hear people use your “poem” as a prompt then you sue on the arguments that they stole your poem to make ai stuff. Flimsy but not beyond reality.
That generative ai will always show slightly different results is by design and decided by the seed and temperatures of the model. With Full control (like local stable diffusion) you can fix those and then the same prompt will always result in the same output.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
