this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
92 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37712 readers
177 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
 

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 (1 children)

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 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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. Providing additional prompts does not change this, just as rerolling the dice wouldn't make the dice the author.

For that matter, gives extensive prompts or other artistic direction to a human artist would not make you eligible for copyright, either. Even if the artist was heavily influenced by your suggestions.

Finally, choosing one among many completed works is not a creative process, even if it requires artistic judgment. Choosing repeatedly does not transform it into a creative process. That's why choosing your favorite song does not mean you are a song creator.