Technology

23 readers

2 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!

founded 2 years ago

AI-Created Art Isn’t Copyrightable, Judge Says in Ruling That Could Give Hollywood Studios Pause (www.hollywoodreporter.com)

submitted 1 year ago by Ragnell@kbin.social to c/tech@kbin.social

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A federal judge on Friday upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of art created by AI is not open to protection.

"In March, the copyright office affirmed that most works generated by AI aren’t copyrightable but clarified that AI-assisted materials qualify for protection in certain instances. An application for a work created with the help of AI can support a copyright claim if a human “selected or arranged” it in a “sufficiently creative way that the resulting work constitutes an original work of authorship,” it said."

Thaler was appealing this, and his appeal was denied.

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

[–] gullible@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What is there to prove that a piece of artwork was or wasn’t made by AI? Within a few years, it will be nigh impossible to tell when AI helped or wholly created a piece, and this will effectively stop no one. It’s a bandaid on a hemorrhage. It’s a very helpful bandaid, but by fuck can someone grab the sutures already?

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What would the "sutures" be, in this analogy?

[–] gullible@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

That’s a difficult question to answer and one that will inevitably piss off many. Mandatory detectability is the easiest answer, but the vaguest- ideally with information about used artworks. Severe fines for training on copyrighted works is another route. Vast and continued investment in creating a public domain art library to pull from would ease the issue for artists. I don’t use AI for art and I don’t legislate so I’m not the one to ask, all I can offer is bandaids as well.

[–] Ragnell@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, computer forensics IS a thing. Computers keep a record of everything done on them, and if it comes down to a lot of money at stake and a lawsuit then those computers can be looked at.

[–] gullible@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What, a full department equivalent to the IRS to constantly audit art and its process? That could work. It’d be pricy, but it could work.

[–] Ragnell@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

It would create jobs.

[–] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 1 points 1 year ago

Just the risk alone will probably deter some companies. You can try to bluff your way through claiming copyright infringement, but if you do ever find yourself in court, the discovery process will start with ways to find out if AI was used and how much.

In theory you could lie to the courts, but that'll make you personally liable, which would be ridiculous.

Copyright currently lives on for 70 years after the death of the authors because of the media cartel. Imagine producing new content that becomes public domain five years after release because someone managed to find out it was AI generated!