US appeals court rejects copyrights for AI-generated art lacking 'human' creator - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 09:54:27 pm
content: As Ai generated music video etc now very good and deceiving this will open a can of shark toothed worms.https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-appeals-court-rejects-copyrights-ai-generated-art-lacking-human-creator-2025-03-18/Reuters articlehttps://archive.fo/XjWKmhttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/sXfyrAzcfjM

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 10:04:45 pm
content: they are harmless critters

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 10:09:01 pm
content: That's a good thing, in particular as to how the heck would anyone be granted a copyright on Ai-generated stuff with no human input? That's more than a can of worms. Who could that be if anyone? The company selling AI services? Horror.(But I'm sure they would be delighted.) The company or person having had the AI-generated stuff on their behalf (even if they didn't do anything about it other than trigger the generation itself, in the sense of "I want stuff generated" with no further input that wanting that.)The real problem currently is the other way around though. AI-generated stuff using copyrighted material with little means of claiming copyright has been infringed. That is just elaborate stealing.But all combined, it's all so fu*ed up that it's becoming pretty funny. Somehow.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2025, 12:06:43 am
content: It's a "two way" thing can of worms. The worms will eat the fish. Quite effed up in many strange ways. Can already hear lawyers strange arguments in the court room.

author: Simmed
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2025, 12:18:42 am
content: it is like money launderingput in something belonging to someone elsewash it with AI soapand wala !

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2025, 12:43:32 am
content: What about AI generated defamation videos/pictures/talk? Quote: Defamation, in law, the act of communicating to a third party false statements about a person that result in damage to that person's reputation.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2025, 12:56:19 am
content: The Reuters link has an adblock/paywall so I only saw the headline. But, isn't AI here just a tool? Shouldn't the tool-user have the rights and bear responsibilities?

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2025, 02:19:18 am
content: Quote from: fourfathom on March 25, 2025, 12:56:19 amHere Reuters articlehttps://archive.fo/XjWKm

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2025, 05:37:11 am
content: Quote from: MT on March 25, 2025, 02:19:18 amInteresting. So the AI spontaneously created that image with no human prompting at all? Sounds fishy.But let's suppose the AI has a "random" mode, and all the human does is press the button and sees what comes out. Is that much different than an artist on a tall ladder randomly pouring paint on a canvas and copyrighting the resulting splatter? Probably there is a legal principle that answers the question, but I don't know about a moral one.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2025, 06:48:28 am
content: sounds like a slot machine for artsome might say its a degenerate gamblermaybe just tax it like casino winnings?

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2025, 08:13:00 am
content: Quote from: MT on March 25, 2025, 12:43:32 amI would have thought it would depend on the circumstances.If someone asks Chat GPT to write about someone and it turns out to be false, that's one thing, but if they copied and posted it on social media, then that's another. Everyone knows AI hallucinates, so the user will be aware the article might be false, but if they post it elsewhere, without being transparent about it, then they should be held liable.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2025, 09:55:56 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 25, 2025, 08:13:00 amIf you write a script that will automatically post disinformation, who is to blame? You didn't post it, you just connected a bunch of APIs together. What if you just write some software that only replies to some input on Twitter as misinformation. What if you only wrote the software that made it possible to do this? What if you only made the operating system, or you only own the servers this happens on?At what exact point does your liability disappear?Quote from: fourfathom on March 25, 2025, 05:37:11 amSomeone made the prompt. Someone might have went in and manually marked the areas with 7 fingers and other nonsense to regenerate. Someone choose the training dataset, that could be very specific. There are datasets to generate western style cartoon figures for example.How is the AI tool different than drawing on a tablet? What if you made a sketch that the AI tool colored?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2025, 01:42:19 pm
content: Stable Diffusion will automatically generate a random thing if you enter an empty prompt. Technically no human input is require at all to get something random that the model diffuses into, though you'll want to select through images to get something interesting.I was discussing this with a friend yesterday and I think that AI completely breaks the model of copyright, say, 70 years after the author's death, it's really absurd in today's world. I think copyright should be a bit like patents, where you get 20 years of time to exploit your creation and then it becomes available to the public domain to allow others to do what they want with it.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2025, 01:58:13 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on March 25, 2025, 01:42:19 pmThat's also my position, perhaps with the exception that if you've continued to work on it, making significant changes, then the new versions should be covered, but the old, unmodified work should be public domain.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2025, 02:17:18 pm
content: Quote from: MT on March 25, 2025, 12:43:32 amThis is the more general issue of liability regarding AI-generated or AI-controlled stuff. Something a few of us have been talking about for quite a while.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2025, 03:00:08 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 25, 2025, 01:58:13 pmThat's the thing isn't it. It would allow people to remix the first few novels of Harry Potter, but still give JK Rowling the chance to have made her millions - which seems more than fair to me, especially as fans would benefit from the creative base on an existing series. There is some issue of trademarks, which I am not sure how you work around.