Technology

37727 readers

590 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

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

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

submitted 1 year ago by greenskye@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

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

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No matter how detailed your instructions, you won’t have a copyright on the photo.

If you reach a certain threshold you'd be co-creator. AIs can't hold copyright, so in the analogous case you'd be sole copyright holder.

Take the movie industry and try to argue, as a camera operator, that the director has no rights at all to the video you shoot. I'm waiting.

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

In the movie industry, everyone usually signs a work for hire contract that specifies who will have the rights to the completed film.

However, in a recent case the director (Alex Merkin) did not sign a contract and then tried to claim copyright afterwards. The court said that directors have no inherent copyright over film:

We answer that question in the negative on the facts of the present case, finding that the Copyright Actʹs terms, structure, and history support the conclusion that Merkinʹs contributions to the film do not themselves constitute a ʺwork of authorshipʺ amenable to copyright protection. ... As a general rule, the author is the party who actually creates the work, that is, the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright protection. ... But a directorʹs contribution to an integrated ʺwork of authorshipʺ such as a film is not itself a ʺwork of authorshipʺ subject to its own copyright protection.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

As a general rule, the author is the party who actually creates the work, that is, the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright protection

Yes that's a thing directors do. They do the translation between script and image, anything cinematography in a movie is due to them.

Taking the judges' reasoning to an extreme you'd expect them to rule that if I dictate a book to someone who then writes it down I do not own copyright because I did not give the work its tangible expression.

Whose lawyers was he up against? Disney?