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
60017 readers
3036 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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!