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?

  • Lvxferre
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Counterpoint: imagine that I used physical dice to decide the size of the eyes, I just rolled 4d6 and got 21 so the eye is going to be 21mm large. From a legal standpoint, I believe that I’d be still considered a trad artist; however effectively I’m doing a simpler version of what the image generator-assisted artist does.

    • FlowVoid@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The output is still fully predictable by the artist.

      The dice didn’t make the eyes, after all. They just showed 21, now it’s your job to actually make 21mm eyes. In doing so, you could mess up and/or intentionally make 22mm eyes. If someone asks, “Why are these eyes 21mm?”, you can answer “I decided to do what the dice asked”.

      The dice are more like a client who asks you to draw a portrait with 21mm eyes. In other words, they are giving you a prompt. Nobody but you knows if they will get what they asked for.

      • Lvxferre
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The dice didn’t make the eyes, after all.

        And arguably, neither the image generator did. Who did were the artists of the works being fed into the model. In this sense, the analogy is like the artist picking an eye from some random picture and, based on the output of the dice, resizing it to 21mm.

        you can answer “I decided to do what the dice asked”.

        The same reasoning still applies to Stable Diffusion etc., given that you can heavily tweak the output through your prompt. And you can also prompt the program to generate multiple images, and consciously pick one of them.

        • FlowVoid@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          And arguably, neither the image generator did. Who did were the artists

          In which case, neither the image generator nor its operator are eligible for copyright.

          The same reasoning still applies to Stable Diffusion etc., given that you can heavily tweak the output through your prompt.

          The point is that the AI generator (or, if you prefer, its training data) exercised direct control over the image, not you. For that matter, giving extensive prompts or other iterated artistic direction to a human artist would not make you eligible for copyright, either. Even if the artist was heavily influenced by your suggestions. There is a fundamental difference between an art creator and an art critic.

          Finally, choosing one among many completed works is not a creative process, even if it requires artistic judgment. That’s why choosing your favorite song does not in any way make you a song creator. Even if you know that all the songs you don’t choose will be destroyed.