The rule is already human expression in fixed form, of creative height. So you have to demonstrate that you the human made notable contributions to the final output.
Natanael
joined 1 year ago
Using stuff like controlnet to manually influence how images are shaped by the ML engine might count, there's some great examples here (involving custom Qr codes)
It's human expression that is protected by copyright. Creative height is the bar.
If you've done nothing but press a button there's often no copyright. Photography involves things like selection of motive, framing, etc. If you just photograph a motive which itself doesn't have copyright, then what you added through your choices is what you may have copyright of. Using another's scan of a public domain book might be considered fair use, for example (not much extra expression added by just scanning)
Independent creation is indeed a thing in copyright law. Multiple people photographing the same sunset won't infringe each other's copyright, at least not if you don't intentionally try to copy another's expression, like actively replicating their framing and edits and more.
Ublock origin FTW
LG had a partial rollable prototype before they stopped making phones
Obsession with control, including control over future generations
Concepts of a plan of an assassination
Casually getting yourself permabanned
And if you don't know who owns it, leaving a note to ask is simple.
I've been the one to leave stuff out that I didn't have space for anymore, with a note on that it's free to take
If they win with enough margin there won't be gridlock
Human involvement isn't the rule though. Again, that which ends up in fixed form has to carry expression by a human. Otherwise everything from dirt stains to footprints you accidentally create would be under copyright.
The prompts aren't generally considered enough because there's too little control over the final expression, the same prompt can create wildly different outputs.