YouTube's copyright system isn't broken. The world's is.
www.youtube.com
No copyright infringement intended. | Watch Money, my new Nebula Original series, when you join CuriosityStream for only $2.99/month: https://curiositystream...

So recently there has been a lot of debate on AI-generated art and its copyright. I’ve read a lot of comments recently that made me think of this video and I want to highly encourage everyone to watch it, maybe even watch it again if you already viewed it. Watch it specifically with the question “If an AI did it, would it change anything?”

Right now, AI-generated works aren’t copyrightable. https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/ai-generator-art-text-us-copyright-policy-1234661683/ This means you can not copyright the works produced by AI.

I work in games so this is more seemingly relevant to me than maybe it is to you. https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/03/valve-responds-to-claims-it-has-banned-ai-generated-games-from-steam/ Steam has outright said, earlier this month, that it will not publish games on its platform without understanding if the training data has been of images that aren’t public domain.

So right now, common AI is producing works that are potentially copyright-infringing works and are unable to be copyrighted themselves.

So with this information, should copyright exist, and if not, how do you encourage artists and scientists to produce works if they no longer can make a living off of it?

  • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    41·
    1 year ago

    In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” Or an artist may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection. In these cases, copyright will only protect the human-authored aspects of the work, which are “independent of” and do “not affect” the copyright status of the AI-generated material itself.

    So this means work generated by AI is not copyrightable. The work generated by human touch is. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence which is the original source of your post.

    There are no AI works that fit this description though. When most people think of AI works they’re thinking of the former, not the latter. So saying “Right now, AI-generated works aren’t copyrightable.” without making the distinction is misinformation designed to spread doubt.

    • MJBrune@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      There are no AI works that fit this description though.

      There are AI works every day that fit that description. The art in question in the comic book case was not modified and could be taken from the page and used somewhere else with the exception of the words.

      So saying “Right now, AI-generated works aren’t copyrightable.” without making the distinction is misinformation designed to spread doubt.

      You are arguing in bad faith by implying that my intent is to spread doubt through misinformation. Don’t assume things like that. You have no clue of my intentions.

      I’m not trying to “spread doubt”. I’m simply giving the information as is. If you want to have a conversation about the facts, let me know. If you are here to argue in bad faith then I can’t help you.

      • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        There are AI works every day that fit that description. The art in question in the comic book case was not modified and could be taken from the page and used somewhere else with the exception of the words.

        Where does the article you linked it say this?

        In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.

        The registrar does say this though.

        You are arguing in bad faith by implying that my intent is to spread doubt through misinformation. Don’t assume things like that. You have no clue of my intentions.

        I’m not trying to “spread doubt”. I’m simply giving the information as is. If you want to have a conversation about the facts, let me know. If you are here to argue in bad faith then I can’t help you.

        I’m not accusing you of arguing in bad faith or intentionally spreading information, I’m letting you know that you’re repeating the talking points of those who do.

        • MJBrune@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago
          There are AI works every day that fit that description. The art in question in the comic book case was not modified and could be taken from the page and used somewhere else with the exception of the words.

          Where does the article you linked it say this?

          In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.

          The registrar does say this though.

          Literally the next lines.

          In these cases, copyright will only protect the human-authored aspects of the work, which are “independent of” and do “not affect” the copyright status of the AI-generated material itself.

          The copyright of the comic as a product is one thing, the copyright of the individual images is another.

          I’m not accusing you of arguing in bad faith or intentionally spreading information, I’m letting you know that you’re repeating the talking points of those who do.

          Well, I am letting you know you are at this point, clearly ignoring the videos, and articles, and even not reading the article you’ve linked. As the article you even linked states clearly.

          The Copyright Office weighed in for the first time last month on whether its output is copyrightable, finding Midjourney-generated images in Kris Kashtanova’s comic book “Zarya of the Dawn” could not be protected, though Kashtanova’s text and unique arrangement of the book’s elements could.

          So you could go take the images out of the comic book and reuse them because they are not copyrighted.

          • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            So you could go take the images out of the comic book and reuse them because they are not copyrighted.

            You’re begging the question by assuming such content hasn’t been modified and could be taken in the first place. How would you know the content you’re eyeing is usable without violating any rights or laws?

            Copyright law is one big “It depends” making sweeping statements like made and the headline of the article you linked are oversimplifying the issue and presenting a false dichotomy of a much more nuanced issue. The Reuters article I linked presents much less biased coverage that doesn’t gloss over important facts.

            • ragusa@feddit.dk
              1·
              1 year ago

              It really isn’t, because copyright law, in basically all countries AFAIK, requires a human to have made the work. So you do not hold copyright for works generated by an AI. All of the sources agree on this.

    • LastOneStanding@beehaw.orgEnglish
      21·
      1 year ago

      This is important. I also question the idea that copyright law might be “broken.” It might need an update, as most laws do, simply because it’s behind the times. The whole conception of this video is to spread doubt, from its sensationalist headline to the content, from which you have extracted the key points of it that wish to spread doubt. Legal systems worldwide need to catch up and develop as fast as technology and software develops now. That’s the problem. Nothing broken here. Outdated? Perhaps.