“Human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.”

AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, rules a US Federal Judge::United States District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell found that AI-generated artwork can’t be copyrighted, putting to rest a lawsuit against the US Copyright Office over its refusal to copyright an AI-generated image.

  • nousEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    When taking a photograph, you chose the settings, you chose the framing, you chose the equipment. That is enough to be illegible for copyright

    I assume you mean legible here.

    But I can still see the argument going either way. You are right that the prompt might not be copyrightable. Just like a recipe or algorithm is not. But I don’t think many are trying to claim copyright on the prompts. It is the output that is of interest and there things become grey. Is choosing a prompt more like picking the settings of a camera, its framing, subject etc? Those are the important part of taking a photo, like a prompt is to creating an AI generated image. There are parallels here that can give a good argument in court I think. And IMO it is more similar to taking a photograph, than it is to a simple recipe.

    • Hildegarde@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      The prompt is the part that has human input. If the human’s input is not minimally creative, than the AI generated whole cannot be minimally creative. If the human’s input is minimally creative, the AI output will likely be minimally creative.

      If you use software to position objects in a the frame, and then you ask an AI to generate the objects and a background with the framing that you specified, you will almost certainly have a copyrightable work, because deciding where things are positioned in a picture is enough to rise to the level of minimum creativity.

      What matters is the human’s input. You can create uncopyrightable works using any tool, and you can use any tool to create copyrightable works. What matters is how much human expression is involved.

      • nousEnglish
        11·
        1 year ago

        If you use software to position objects in a the frame

        And if you simply describe the position via a prompt (among other things) then is that not also minimally creative?

        What matters is the human’s input. You can create uncopyrightable works using any tool, and you can use any tool to create copyrightable works. What matters is how much human expression is involved.

        Yes, that has basically been my argument - the human input has to be creative in some way and IMO and prompt can be. But not all prompts used will meet that bar. Where the line lies on what meets that bar is still up for debate and AFAIK no court has laid any groupd work for this yet. But a prompt alone can IMO contain enough creativity to allow the AI generated work to be copyrightable.

        • Hildegarde@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          1 year ago

          Copyright laws are written vaguely so they can be applied to all human expression even those that haven’t been invented yet.

          Obviously there are boarder cases where things are not clear cut. That’s true for anything. But when courts make those decisions, they are going to do so using legal frameworks that already exist. The courts are not going to invent new standards to determine whether AI usage is copyrightable or not.

          • nousEnglish
            11·
            1 year ago

            I never suggested they were going to make up new standards based on nothing. All my arguments are related things to existing situations.