- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.::Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.
Removed by mod
Then who created this image in your view?
If someone copies a picture from a cartoon who created it?
What point do you think youre making? The answer to this question supports their point.
I wasn’t arguing with them lol just wondered their opinion.
It does feel weird to me that if someone draws a copy of something people don’t think they’ve created anything. That somehow the original artist created it.
The person who created the cartoon in the first place.
Try painting a Disney character on the wall of a waiting room.for children.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/07/robert-jenrick-has-cartoon-murals-painted-over-at-childrens-asylum-centre
So the copyer didn’t create anything? Odd way to look at it to me.
The copier didn’t create any Intellectual property. They copied it.
Copy right. The right to copy.
It’s fairly fundamental.
Removed by mod
Machines aren’t culpable in law.
There is more than one human involved in creating and operating the machine.
The debate is, which humans are culpable?
The programmers, trainers, or prompters?
Removed by mod
If you try to bread with an autonomous knife and the knife kills you by stabbing you in the head. Is it solely your fault?
Removed by mod
So you’re saying if it’s easy to accidentally get copyright images out of this AI by prompting ordinary worlds. Then the AI designers have some questions to answer.
Removed by mod
VCR makers do not claim to create original programming.
Removed by mod
Because they aren’t doing anything to violate copyright themselves. You might, but that’s different. AI art is created by the software. Supposedly it’s original art. This article shows it is not.
Removed by mod
If I draw a very close picture to a screenshot of a Mickey Mouse cartoon and try to pass it off as original art because there are a handful of differences, I don’t think most people would buy it.
Removed by mod
It has relevance to what counts as an original artwork.
This is what you said:
No it is not. They do not have enough differences to be considered original in any court of law.
Removed by mod