Technology

37735 readers

51 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

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

Opinion: The Copyright Office is making a mistake on AI-generated art (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 year ago by greenskye to c/technology

162 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

No, the output of an AI is fundamentally “coincidental” and should not be subject to copyright.

If the image generator in question generated a piece of content that looks similar enough to some piece of content protected by copyright, odds are that it has been trained with it, or that both were produced with the same set of pieces of content.

That shows that the issue might be elsewhere - it isn't the output of the image generators, but the works being fed into the generator, when "training" them. (IMO the word "training" is rather misleading here.)

Human intent and authorship MUST be a significant factor.

Refer to the link in the OP, regarding photography. All this discussion about "intent" (whatever this means) and authorship has been already addressed by legal systems, a long time ago.

their direct involvement and manipulation must be meaningfully “transformative” for copyright to apply in a fair and equitable way.

What does "meaningfully" mean in this context? It's common for people using Stable Diffusion and similar models to create a bunch of images and trash most of them away; or to pick the output and "fix" it by hand. I'd argue that both are already meaningful enough.

If anything, this only highlights how the copyright laws were already broken, even before image gen...