1388
AI-Created Art Isn’t Copyrightable, Judge Says In Ruling That Could Give Hollywood Studios Pause
(www.hollywoodreporter.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
1388 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
59708 readers
5537 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Prompt engineering is becoming a desired skill🫠
It's like saying "My Google-fu is a desired skill".
Errr, no.
Yes, it's a bit more than just hitting the 'enter' key.
But not as complicated as actually doing the work yourself. That's the point. If you don't create the work, it can't be copyrighted.
Honestly I think this is a good compromise, and these companies are missing the point. Just use this technology to make more movies and TV shows. Stop milking the exact same movie for years.
Something from decades ago, where the actors and directors are all dead, shouldn't be copyrighted. I think that's too long anyway. It lets a few actors get a ton of money and stifles others. People want new shit anyway.
Why not just hire actors full time and make a new AI script every week? That's essentially what TikTok is, some new dumb idea done over and over by different people.
AI has been great for dumb TikTok memes, but that's where it should stay.
Regarding prompts and just hitting enter, I actually did quite a bit of work in a previous job that was pretty much just that. I'd set up the inputs, finagle the simulation, and come up with results. There's some value in hitting enter, but it's not in the actual execution. It's in developing the input and interpreting the results. The raw product itself isn't valuable -- someone who knew nothing about the program could be instructed on what to enter and what buttons to press, and they'd create the exact same product.
I think what we'll see is copyright for prompts and development, but not for the output it generates. Someone could make a living on selling AI prompts without ever executing any of them.
I'm curious how this ruling is going to affect the discussion of AI being trained on copyright material.
But it is more than simply pressing enter. It's rare that a single prompt is going to produce the exact image you're looking for, so there's lots of editing, seeing the outcome, repeat. If the outcome is close enough, then further in painting can be used. By that point, there's been quite a bit of human interaction in the creation.
If someone dumps paint on a surface and let's gravity do the work it's the same thing. If someone ties paint buckets to dogs and let's them run it's the same thing. When all you do is initiate the process and let another force make the creation it shouldn't be. If your can't replicate it yourself then it isn't your work.
Most art is created with tools. You can't replicate yourself a photo you took (yourself meaning without the camera).
By that logic photography is not your work either
Depends. If you just let the camera swing and let it randomly shoot then it isn't. If youre framing it and composing it that's your work. But no just putting a camera on a cat and letting it randomly take pics isn't your work.
but what if that was the intent behind the artwork? if I want a series of random photos and say it's an art piece from the pov of Spider-Man swinging around but the setup is just hanging a camera and letting it take pictures on its own as it swings, is that still copyrightable art? If so, is art all about the intent behind the process and the process itself doesn't matter?
The above commenter is factually correct. Quit downvoting him, you bandwagon-following dipshits!
Um, paint pouring is a long-standing art form, so...not sure you're making a defensible argument here.