192
AI-Created Art Isn’t Copyrightable, U.S. Judge Says in Ruling That Could Give Hollywood Studios Pause
(www.hollywoodreporter.com)
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
192 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37719 readers
307 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
We already knew that. This is just upholding an obvious decision that was really already established long before AI was on the scene. If a human didn't create it, it can't be copyrightable.
The problem that the courts haven't really answered yet is: How much human input is needed to copyright something? 5%? 20%? 50%? 80%? If some AI wrote most of a script and a human writer cleaned it up, is that enough? There is a line, but the courts haven't drawn that yet.
Also, fuck copyrights. They only benefit the rich, anyway.
Having some form of copyright IMO is good, like you said putting the line somewhere.
Current copyright is fucked (lifetime of the artist plus 70 years)
The way it used to be (14 years) wasn't bad IMO
Copyrights don't just benefit the rich, in fact they severely limit what big companies can do with what you create. On the other hand, the current copyright term in most places (70 years after the author's death) is just ridiculous, and simply guarantees that you will not live to see most content you saw as a kid move into the public domain, while the current owners continue to make money that the original author will never see.
Copyrights don’t just benefit the rich, in fact they severely limit what big companies can do with what you create.
If a big company chose to copy what you created, and you tried to fight it in court, they would bury you in a years-long legal battle that would continue until you ran out of money, quit, or they themselves declared it not worth the money to defend.
Robert Kearns patented the intermittent windshield wiper, which all of the car companies stole, and he sued Ford. From Wikipedia: The lawsuit against the Ford Motor Company was opened in 1978 and ended in 1990. Kearns sought $395 million in damages. He turned down a $30 million settlement offer in 1990 and took it to the jury, which awarded him $5.2 million; Ford agreed to pay $10.2 million rather than face another round of litigation.
Copyrights. Only. Benefit. The. Rich.
Counterexample: the many cases of large companies (Best buy, Cisco, Skype etc) being sued over violations of the GNU GPL. The original authors of the code often get awarded millions in damages because a large company stole their work.
But where do you draw the line between "a human did it using a tool" and "it wasn't created by a human?"
Generative art exists, and can be copyrighted. Also a drawing made with Photoshop involves a lot of complex filters (some might even use AI!)
I agree on the "fuck copyright" part that said.
The problem that the courts haven't really answered yet is: How much human input is needed to copyright something? 5%? 20%? 50%? 80%? If some AI wrote most of a script and a human writer cleaned it up, is that enough?
Or perhaps even coming up and writing a prompt is considered enough human input by some.
This is the U.S., we quite literally can't uphold values to save our lives. Hollywood studios aren't going to pause shit.
If AI-created art isn't copyrightable then that means it's public domain. But it's entirely possible to create something that is copyrighted using public domain "raw materials", you just need to do some work with it. And if those "raw materials" are never published, only the copyrighted final product, it's going to be really hard for anyone else to make use of it. So I don't really see how this is a big deal, especially not to Hollywood.
You can also copyright the original character and make AI generate all the motions of that character. Since the originals was (human) created and copyrighted, it doesn’t matter that AI created art derived from that character isn’t copyrightable in of itself.
Plus there is also trademarks for character likeness.
All in all, I agree with you, this is a non issue for Hollywood studios.
While cameras generated a mechanical reproduction of a scene, she explained that they do so only after a human develops a “mental conception” of the photo, which is a product of decisions like where the subject stands, arrangements and lighting, among other choices.
I agree. The types of AIs that we have today are nothing more than mixers of various mental conceptions to create something new. These mental conceptions comes with life experience and is influenced by a person's world view.
Once you remove this mental conception, will the AIs that we currently have today be able to thrive on their own? The answer is no.
When I generate AI art I do so by forming a mental conception of what sort of image I want and then giving the AI instructions about what sort of image I want it to produce. Sometimes those instructions are fairly high-level, such as "a mouse wearing a hat", and other times the instructions are very exacting and can take the form of an existing image or sketch with an accompanying description of how I'd like the AI to interpret it. When I'm doing inpainting I may select a particular area of a source image and tell the AI "building on fire" to have it put a flaming building in that spot, for example.
To me this seems very similar to photography, except I'm using my prompts and other inputs to aim a camera at places in a latent space that contains all possible images. I would expect that the legal situation will eventually shake out along that line.
This particular lawsuit is about someone trying to assign the copyright for a photo to the camera that took it, which is just kind of silly on its face and not very relevant. Cameras can't hold copyrights under any circumstances.
This is the Stephen Thaler thing, which is pretty much just a nonsense digression from the real issues of AI art. For some reason Thaler is trying to assert that the copyright for an AI-generated piece of art should belong to the AI itself. This is a non-starter because an AI is not a person in a legal sense, and copyrights can only be held by legal persons. The result of this lawsuit is completely obvious and completely useless to the broader issues.
They really are screwing up the headlines on these articles and giving everyone terrible takes on AI. As if their takes weren't ignorant enough to begin with.
Yay! Creatives can a decent job and they can eat too now!
I wouldnt say all copyright is bad, but rather copyright law as it is is rife with abuse and bad actors. Big corporations use it like a hammer, and small creators arent able to go up against big corporations if they steal copyrighted work. And copyright/patent trolls are able to shut down anything and everything no questions asked.
There needs to be some way for individuals to have some protections for their work, but the current system aint it. (And this is before AI)
Not much changes with this ruling. The whole thing was about trying to give an AI authorship of a work generated solely by a machine and having the copyright go to the owner of the machine through the work-for-hire doctrine.
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
More than 100 days into the writers strike, fears have kept mounting over the possibility of studios deploying generative artificial intelligence to completely pen scripts.
The ruling was delivered in an order turning down Stephen Thaler’s bid challenging the government’s position refusing to register works made by AI.
Copyright law has “never stretched so far” to “protect works generated by new forms of technology operating absent any guiding human hand,” U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell found.
His complaint argued that the office’s refusal was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with the law” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which provides for judicial review of agency actions.
While cameras generated a mechanical reproduction of a scene, she explained that they do so only after a human develops a “mental conception” of the photo, which is a product of decisions like where the subject stands, arrangements and lighting, among other choices.
In another case, the a federal appeals court said that a photo captured by a monkey can’t be granted a copyright since animals don’t qualify for protection, though the suit was decided on other grounds.
Saved 77% of original text.