So does a prompt not count as human input Edit: ok so if i train a style lora based on my own style and then prompt the ai to generate artwork , then I still don’t deserve the copyright? What if I do all that and then do touchups by hand is that somehow different? I find all this stuff so silly tbh but it is interesting to discuss.
If you hire someone and tell them “paint my room orange”, did you paint the room orange?
Weirdly enough, it might.
I mean, sure, an orange room doesn’t qualify for copyright.
But if you instruct helpers to help you make a copyrightable work to your specifications (e.g. architects instructing workers to build the building), then you own the copyright.
It all comes down to who had what part of the creative process.
For example, if I create a digital artwork and I use an AI tool to increase the resolution, I totally still own the artwork.
I am also pretty sure I retain the copyright if I let an AI fix my spelling in a story I wrote.
But if my input is negligable (“Write me a short story.”), I definitely don’t have the copyright.
Copyright law is complicated and there’s never a clear general answer.
“For example, if I create a digital artwork and I use an AI tool to increase the resolution, I totally still own the artwork.”
There are tools that allow you to convert a stick figure drawing plus a prompt into whatever you want. I can draw a stick figure holding a circle and prompt it as a bunny holding an apple and I could get the desired output. Of course thats more than increasing resolution but where do we draw the line.
Hope: AI gets so good that people using a personal computer can produce full TV series with a single prompt, delare it uncopyrightable, and share the best results online as a alternative to corporate stuff.
Fear: IP law becomes so disconnected from the current situation that it prompts governments start over from scratch. New IP law is written by the corporations for the corporations, and any form of creativity is restricted and monetized.
This doesn’t mean artists or movie studios can’t make AI creations and sell them. It just means they can’t stop people from copying and distributing them.
If a well regarded artist uses generative AI to make art, then prints a single copy or a limited edition and signs them, they can sell them. Other people can copy it, but it won’t be the same. They won’t have the same value as the ones the artist produced, and they won’t be signed.
Can they copy the artist’s ai generated art including the signature and sell that?
Well, of course not, because since some diffusion generation are deterministic, that would mean that a specific set of parameters is now copyrighted, so nobody else gets to type in that particular set of numbers into the UI without paying the copyright holder, which of course makes no sense.
Same reason you can’t copyright, say, cooking recipe for a burger.
Food and flavors aren’t copyrightable or patentable because of an explicit exclusion of them. It has nothing to do with “determinism”.
No. Recipes are not copyrightable because they’re largely functional things for instructing a process to create a food, which simply is not in the purview of copyright. Specific recipes could very well be patented, depending on the specifics. There are no “explicit exclusions” here.
My 2c:
On projects over a certain revenue the AI could say how much it was influenced (trained on) by the respective copyrighted content and then royalties could go out to the people who own that content in percents.
My 4c:
There could be an intellectual property blockchain and everything that can be used to train an AI gets a token.
Again, I think all of this should only be mandatory for huge corporations, similar to how unreal engine is free under 1 million dollar earnings.
This could also be an interesting way to see how human made content makes its way through the “minds” of AIs.
