A rule against copyrighting AI art will be unworkable.

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?

  •  greenskye   ( @greenskye@beehaw.org ) OP
    2•9 months ago

    These are my thoughts as well. It seems obvious that putting in ‘cat with a silly hat’ as a prompt is basically the creative equivalent of googling for a picture.

    But, as you say, that sort of AI usage is just dumb, bottom tier usage. There’s going to someday be a major, critical piece of art that heavily uses AI assistance in it’s creation and people are going to be surprised that it’s somehow not copyrightable under the laws and rulings they’re working on now.

    I remember in the LOTR behind the scenes they talked about how WETA built a game l like software to simulate the massive battle scenes, giving each soldier a series of attacks and hp, etc. They then used this to build out the final CGI.

    Stuff like that has already been going on for ages and it’s only going to get more murky as to what ‘AI art’ even means and what is enough human creativity and editing added to the process to make it human created rather than AI created.

    •  HelixTitan   ( @HelixTitan@beehaw.org ) 
      1•9 months ago

      A hand coded simulation in house is the definition of creative expression. Using a product to essentially Google an image is not, I don’t see how this is a hard distinction.

      Perfect example is Corridor Crews second anime battle video. Or Joel animation on YouTube. There is more to those than just using an AI to get an image of short video

      •  millie   ( @millie@beehaw.org ) 
        2•9 months ago

        The distinction is that you need to actually use the product in a realistic use case before you can pass judgement on its use. You’re judging cameras on the basis of selfies. This thread is full of explicit examples of how actual artists use this to assist in their work. Please read that.