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?

  • viq
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    @FlowVoid
    So what happens if you use a voice assistant to direct a vacuum cleaner though snow or trace a pattern with paint on a floor?
    @lvxferre

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Lvxferre
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Counterpoint: imagine that I used physical dice to decide the size of the eyes, I just rolled 4d6 and got 21 so the eye is going to be 21mm large. From a legal standpoint, I believe that I’d be still considered a trad artist; however effectively I’m doing a simpler version of what the image generator-assisted artist does.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          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.

          • 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.

            • @[email protected]
              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.

    • Lvxferre
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      Ultimately the only agent involved is the person commanding the vacuum cleaner through the voice assistant. If someone got copyright, that should be that person; and if we’re going to be consistent with the current (and rather shitty) typical copyright laws used by plenty govs, it should.