(no title)
40yearoldman | 2 years ago
Could the creator of the ai producing code then hold copyright, or maybe it’s those who found the weights?
This ruling seems to suggest any method of automating works would not qualify for copyright.
If so. We are just one step closer to abandoning the notion of a copyright, which still is the only logical solution in a world where we can have and do anything we desire at the click of a button.
EA-3167|2 years ago
The "creator" of the art in that case is also the creator of the system which generates the art. You didn't create Stable Diffusion, MidJourney or whatever else, it's just a tool you have access to.
I'm not sure if that's a difference that should matter, but it's clearly a notable difference.
bsenftner|2 years ago
40yearoldman|2 years ago
Are paint brushes just tools people have access to, does the manufacturer of the paint brush own the painting?
Prompts are no different than positions and angles the artist instructs the tool to motion. The only real difference is the ratio of perceived work to output.
Even a prompt could take years to derive. I am 40. And 30 years ago I could have not com up with the following, making the prompt below 40 years in the making.
“Field of dead dreams, with copyright monsters flying above looking for there next meal”.
Spell check fixed a few things, along with typo correction, does Apple know own a copyright of my work?
nonethewiser|2 years ago