FlowVoid @ FlowVoid @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

466

Joined

2 yr. 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.

There are two separate issues here. First, can you copyright art that is completely AI-generated? The answer is no. So openAI cannot claim a copyright for its output, no matter how it was trained.

The other issue is if openAI violated a copyright. It's true that if you write a book in the style of another author, then you aren't violating copyright. And the same is true of openAI.

But that's not really what the openAI lawsuit alleges. The issue is not what it produces today, but how it was originally trained. The authors point out that in the process of training openAI, the developers illegally download their works. You can't illegally download copyrighted material, period. It doesn't matter what you do with it afterwards. And AI developers don't get a free pass.

Illegally downloading copyrighted books for pleasure reading is illegal. Illegally downloading copyrighted books for training an AI is equally illegal.

You can't copyright AI-generated art even if it was only trained with images in the public domain.

In fact, you can't copyright AI-generated art even it was only trained with images that you made.

In most experimental work, the artist does make a direct contribution to some key elements of the work, for example framing or background. Which is all that's necessary, you can still obtain copyright over something that is only partially under your control.

If an artist gives up all direct control over an experimental work - such as the infamous monkey selfie - then I think they should no longer be able to copyright it.

The output is still fully predictable by the artist.

The dice didn't make the eyes, after all. They just showed 21, now it's your job to actually make 21mm eyes. In doing so, you could mess up and/or intentionally make 22mm eyes. If someone asks, "Why are these eyes 21mm?", you can answer "I decided to do what the dice asked".

The dice are more like a client who asks you to draw a portrait with 21mm eyes. In other words, they are giving you a prompt. Nobody but you knows if they will get what they asked for.

So if someone asks you to paint something and gives you detailed instructions about what they want to see in your painting, do you think they should have copyright over your work?

The copyright office has been pretty clear that if an artist is significantly involved in creating an image but then adjusts it with AI, or vice versa, then the work is still eligible for copyright.

In all of the cases where copyright was denied, the artist made no significant changes to AI output and/or provided the AI with nothing more than a prompt.

Photographers give commands to their camera just as a traditional artist gives commands in Photoshop. The results in both cases are completely predictable. This is where they diverge from AI-generated art.

It's not a matter of intelligence or sentience. The key question is whether the output of a prompt is fully predictable by the person who gave the prompt.

The behavior of a paintbrush, mouse, camera, or robot arm is predictable. The output of a prompt is not (at least, not predictable by the person who gave the prompt).

A prompt is more than a command. It is a command with an immediate output that is not fully predictable by the prompt-giver.

So for example the copyright office might ask, "This image includes a person whose left eye is a circle with radius 2.14 cm. Why is it 2.14 cm?"

Traditional artist: because I chose to move the paintbrush (or mouse) 2.14 cm. The paintbrush (mouse) can only go where I move it.

Photographer: because I chose to stand 3 meters from the subject and use an 85mm lens on my camera. The magnification (size) of the eye depends only on those factors.

AI-assisted artist: because I asked for larger eyes. I did not specify precisely 2.14 cm, but I approved of it.

In your example, if you can fully predict the output of the vacuum by your voice command, then it is no different than using a paintbrush or mouse.

But it does matter whether your input is a brush or a prompt.

If you physically paint something with a paintbrush, you have a copyright over your work.

If someone asks you to physically paint something by describing what they want, you still have copyright over the work. No matter how picky they are, no matter how many times they review your progress and tell you to start over. Their prompts do not allow them to claim copyright, because prompts in general are not sufficient to claim copyright.

The argument relies a lot on an analogy to photographers, which misunderstands the nature of photography. A photographer does not give their camera prompts and then evaluate the output.

A better analogy would be giving your camera to a passerby and asking them to take your photo, with prompts about what you want in the background, lighting, etc. No matter how detailed your instructions, you won't have a copyright on the photo.

indoctrinate from the Latin docēre, "to teach"

(Other offspring of docēre include doctor, document, and, of course, doctrine)

After her trial, maybe she will move in.