nomadiclizard t1_iuz219j wrote
How can you 'own' the generated images? When anyone else, using the same prompt, gets the same image? The only thing that makes sense if that you get a non-exclusive license to use it, but so does everyone else using that prompt.
HermanCainsGhost t1_iuz7dxs wrote
> When anyone else, using the same prompt, gets the same image?
That's... not how DALL-E works? Like you can use the exact same prompt and you'll get different images each time
World177 t1_iuzgmpa wrote
Using the same seed, you'll get the the same image with the same prompt. Either way, they're both partially a generalization of what those words represent.
> When anyone else, using the same prompt, gets the same image?
Though, to answer them, legal copyright is concerned with human creative effort. Choosing novel and interesting inputs for a final art piece is somewhat comparable to choosing a gradient when using photoshop. The legal copyright being enforceable will likely be on if the court determines enough creative effort went into creating the image.
In the following video a copyright lawyer on YouTube (Lawful Masses) covers the spectrum of fair use and copyright ownership. I think this video provides a insight into how a the legal system might also determine if someone owns copyright to AI generated art. They also recently covered AI generated art in another video, but I think the first video better explains how law isn't simple binary choices.
_poisonedrationality t1_iv0txbb wrote
Does DALL-E let you choose the seed?
Western-Hawk4469 t1_iv2sj1q wrote
why do u guys keep say u get the same image with the same prompt? i get a feeling u hav not even tried it out? i have never got the same result ever!
bankimu t1_iuzec0s wrote
Unless you happen to use the same seed.
DeepGamingAI t1_iuztzcm wrote
Latent spaces are the new real estate
ReginaldIII t1_iv0gqkt wrote
ItsFreeRealEstate.jpg
zacker150 t1_iuz3wqp wrote
Presumably, the random noise used as input will be different. As for the minimum creativity necessary for copyright, the prompt should suffice.
AuspiciousApple t1_iuzb7wc wrote
It's still a fair question. Suppose I generate something with a common seed (1234, 42, 69420, whatever) and default settings of a popular stable diffusion UI. Other people might conceivably end up generating a very similar image or even the same if they use the exact same prompt.
In that case, does the first people to generate it have the copyright? Do they lose it once it's been generated a second time?
World177 t1_iuzhhho wrote
Machine learning models of text are generalizations of what the text represents. A generalization being copyrightable seems like a bad idea, though, I don't think the legal system has really decided. In my opinion, owning a generalization is like stating that Apple should own all color gradients because they used them predominately in their advertising. It seems to cover too much, but, Apple probably does own copyright on final created art pieces that use uncopyrightable gradients to create something.
zacker150 t1_iuzm4z3 wrote
I imagine an image generated using a prompt like "a chicken" would not be copyrightable. However, a prompt like "Asian girl with pink hair playing the piano with two brown pomeranian dog in her lap." would produce a copyrightable image.
The real question is, how long does the prompt need to be to satisfy the minimum human creativity requirement.
midasp t1_iv0bjwv wrote
The text prompt "chicken" is just the first step. The user still has a mental model of what is considered an acceptable "chicken" and the act of selecting one image that best matches that mental model from a cluster of AI generated "chicken" images should also count for something where creativity and copyrighting is concerned.
[deleted] t1_iv0eter wrote
[deleted]
World177 t1_iv3wojd wrote
I don’t think it should be compared to a collage, because that’s not what the model is doing. It’s taking words, and predicting what humans expect to see when given these words describing the image. This is an attempt at generalization, and should start to look similar between models as they improve in quality.
If you take a course on Duolingo, and you learn a language using their copyrighted images, you didn’t steal Duolingo’s content when you applied the knowledge you learned to make creative works for someone in that new language. Though, I think there is some sentiment from people misunderstanding this process and believing that the original owner of the copyrighted content should be entitled to partial ownership too.
[deleted] t1_iv0ensw wrote
[deleted]
World177 t1_iv3vbgs wrote
I don’t agree that a sentence of text should grant copyright to a generalization of the meaning of those words. I think doing that could be harmful, and destroy actual creative copyrightable uses like if a developer used the model to rapidly develop a game, or an author used it to help illustrate their book.
Though, I am not sure how much the legal system will value the creation of a sentence for creative input
Saytahri t1_iv0jye8 wrote
It's just procedural generation, I don't think that just because someone could follow the same steps as you to produce the same thing that it can't be your intellectual property, otherwise how do people claim ownership of anything made in software? You could call the mouse and keyboard inputs "prompts" if you wanted, Dall-E is just easier to use.
In fact you could make a very simple neutral network that turns a seed into an image, that is capable of generating any image. The seed would just need to be as big as the output. That wouldn't invalidate my ability to have intellectual property on images just because someone could produce the same thing with the AI with the same input.
In fact we should expect that as image generators get better, eventually we should be able to generate pretty much anything with them with a detailed enough prompt, I don't see why this would affect the ability to own the outputs.
dat_cosmo_cat t1_iuz49g9 wrote
It is easy to read it like an ad for NFTs, we've seen so much bullshit out if that community I don't blame anyone for getting triggered. The implication behind this seems different though; it is advertising an opportunity to profit off of free use, rather than scarcity.
Western-Hawk4469 t1_iv2rswy wrote
do u ever get the same image with the same prompt and settings? the answer is NO, u will always get a unique image nomather what. U can get "similar" images and styles but never the same. so all results will be different, and all results will be unique. Also in my opinion progress and new inventions has always taken its toe on the present, Technology has been reducing the human workflow all over the world for manny years now, machines taking over if the companys can afford to buy the new robots and machines and technology. Why should it be anny different with art? i mean in the end art is what u see and feel and no one sees and feels the same about 1 piece of art. S0 if u can make someone feel something and see something they like, does it matter who and how we made it? i mean im sure there was a lot of people and companies who suffered economic loss when the wheel got invented or the car was invented. If u owned a horse carriage company at the time, well do the math. :P
yaosio t1_iuz3b7t wrote
In the US AI created art can't be covered by copyright so it doesn't matter if you own it, anybody can use it. Expect this to change when Disney uses AI to fully create something and demands copyright law changes.
master3243 t1_iuzrd2n wrote
> In the US AI created art can't be covered by copyright
What? Literally the answer was one google search away
Kashtanova obtained a US copyright on the art compiled into 18-pages which was created by Midjourney
Sources:
Artist receives first known US copyright registration for latent diffusion AI art
yaosio t1_iv0xirt wrote
This is what I found. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ai+created+art+can+not+be+copywritten
mgostIH t1_iv1fosb wrote
If you'd look at any of the articles before stopping to the title you'd understand that's what referred to "AIs work can't be copywritten" is that you can't attribute copyright to the artificial intelligence itself, but all of these judgements allow any human that puts any minimal effort into the generation (for example typing the prompt) to own the copyright for the image instead.
yaosio t1_iv1krc6 wrote
>The U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) once again rejected a copyright request for an A.I.-generated work of art, the Verge’s Adi Robertson reported last month. A three-person board reviewed a request from Stephen Thaler to reconsider the office’s 2019 ruling, which found his A.I.-created image “lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.”
AI created work can not be copywritten because a human must author it. If you want to copyright AI created work then you'll need to get the laws changed.
mgostIH t1_iv1mz53 wrote
The act of prompting the AI for the generation of the image is what grants you authorship of the latter.
master3243 t1_iv2h0c5 wrote
How did you literally just ignore the two articles above that show the US copyright office granting the copyright?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments