Ars TechnicaOpinion: Don’t exclude AI-generated art from copyright
A rule against copyrighting AI art will be unworkable.
Mitsuki Laycock (real) 🐱 
@arstechnica no it fucking wouldn't
@arstechnica this is a bullshit opinion, copyright is for manmade works, and a pattern matching algorithm infringing others copyright for "model training" doesnt apply for it
rare Ars Technica L
Clinton Anderson SwordForHire@arstechnica There is no such thing as "AI Art".
What you're talking about is Copyright Violation.
Fuck "AI Art".
Tom Bellin 
@ClintonAnderson @arstechnica AI can copyright the fingers disappearing or meeting with other fingers. But that's it.
@tob @arstechnica Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean?
Sak@arstechnica No. Copyrights should be for protecting the works of people, not corporations
Fennix 
@arstechnica This week in awful takes...
Seriously, I understand this is opinion. It's a bad one though. Ars, you know you don't have to publish EVERYONE'S opinions on things that are vaguely technical, right?
@fennix @arstechnica it's got the word AI in it so it gets published
kierkegaank@arstechnica counteropinion: no, do exclude it
Gokul Das@arstechnica Opinion: Stop parroting the opinion of the few rich corpos with the financial resources to copyright-wash others' works using ML.
June 🩵🩷🤍🩷🩵@arstechnica The biggest issue these pieces exclude is that the traversal of the latent space is deterministic in such a way that no copyrightable work is. If I could get copyright on AI generated images - the first thing I could do is set up a bot which would generate phrases then put them through image generators then technically they would be copyrighted right from thier generation. It would be a whole new way to do copyright trolling because I could have billions to trillions of generated images that I hold the copyright to and if I think your AI generated image (or even regular image) is close to one of mine - you've committed infringement.
spherulitic@Guildz @arstechnica I can create a bot to generate and record every possible series of musical notes and then sue every songwriter for the rest of time
@spherulitic @arstechnica or every book, https://libraryofbabel.info/ - like what does AI even mean? Is any generative algorithm AI? If not, whats the line? If the line "is a neural net" thats bad as well cause a neural network can represent any arbitrary function. There is no consistant system of rules that this doesn't lead to everything being instantly copyrighted.
Joe 
@spherulitic @Guildz @arstechnica then try it xD
Someone generated and stored all 8 note sequences or something like that, and opened it to the public so now anyone getting sued for a short sequence can have the case thrown out.
AGreatSound@arstechnica there is already precedent against this. And the reasoning of “because it would be unworkable” is not a great reason to do anything.
THIS ACCOUNT HAS MOVED@arstechnica such an obvious feedback loop
Nihl L'Amas@arstechnica Won't somebody think of the poor struggling algorithms
birdpoofFuck that and fuck this.
Ministerofimpediments@arstechnica the article completely misses the point. The issue is that the work was not solely created by a specific tool under the direction of an artist (a brush, camera, or MS Paint), nor was the artist assisted by another ‘person’ as the “AI” is not a true AI but simply an amalgamation of other works that the tool reproduces in some part.
The work is more akin to a mural painted by other artists by direction, or a symphony performance…both without attribution/agreement of the other artists.
The work is more akin to a mural painted by other artists by direction, or a symphony performance…both without attribution/agreement of the other artists.
@arstechnica it would be akin to showing up at a programmer’s convention, setting up a booth, and asking attendees to each write a snippet of code based on your direction/framework. Then calling the resulting program ‘yours’.
Except not only do you not know who wrote for you, you didn’t actually ask them, or pay them, or acknowledge them…other existing work was reused without consent.
Because the AI model works the way it does he cannot say it was a unique work…he created an instruction set.
Except not only do you not know who wrote for you, you didn’t actually ask them, or pay them, or acknowledge them…other existing work was reused without consent.
Because the AI model works the way it does he cannot say it was a unique work…he created an instruction set.
sͧb̴ͫƸ̴gͬᵉ@arstechnica
.. was this article written by an AI?
Next in turn: Patentable Humans! Generate all RNA/DNA variants in silico, patent them, license people to live!
The Hat Fox@arstechnica I think this an interesting argument. A photographer explores a physical space, an AI user explores a “latent space”, they both apply their judgement and intuition in what is finally “captured” as an image or work. If one is eligible for copyright perhaps the other should too.
Of course this is separate argument to whether an AI itself can be assigned copyright, or the legitimacy of using models trained on “unlicensed” data.
Chasnah
Craig! 🐦🐦🐦🐦🐦🐦@arstechnica What a terrible opinion
🦊⛩️稲荷大神の狐⛩️🦊@arstechnica The copyright office did the correct thing. An algorithm based on human prompts and using other people's copyrighted, unlicensed works in the training of the AI, should not be copyrightable at all.
If copyright were to be granted, who gets the copyright? You the prompter? The company that developed the algorithm? Or the artist whose unlicensed works were used in the training of that AI model?
If AI were to become more accepted and copyright allowed, I would bet money that companies that created the AI would see it as their software is creating the art, you are merely giving it prompts, they deserve the copyright to any artwork YOU prompted the AI to make. Then sneak it into the EULA that any AI artwork you generated is copyrighted to the company that made the software. Not You.
Arguing that prompts you as the end user gives is like someone requesting an art piece from an artist.
Putting us back here at square one again.
AI artwork should always be unprofitable.
Emmet Broaders@arstechnica Opinion: I should be allowed to republish Ars Technical articles as long as I make a couple of changes
$ Enya10🔥 | 
& 
Needs to Migrate@arstechnica Opinion: copyright deez nutz
Trebuchet@arstechnica Christ, that’s a bad take
WraithGear@arstechnica it seems to me that NOT putting AI work in the public domain is untenable. At least until the AI is capable of arguing for its ownership
Charles L@arstechnica
False equivalence between photography and AI generated art. The more apt comparison would be between an "AI artist" and a guy standing next to a photographer and telling them to take a picture of someone else's art.
False equivalence between photography and AI generated art. The more apt comparison would be between an "AI artist" and a guy standing next to a photographer and telling them to take a picture of someone else's art.
AdevNo, Arstechnica, that is just non-sensical.
Even before AI art, Copyright already barely makes sense in the digital world. We are now in a world where sharing and copying is the basic of every online social interaction.
What copyright need is to be reworked deeply to fit our modern world.
Not just extended to machine generated art.
hadoken@arstechnica And who benefits the most from copyrighted photography? That would be the massive copyright troll that is Getty Images. Not a persuasive argument.
Jonathan HendryGuy whose income is based on his AI substack says don't regulate AI.
Up next: Water is wet.
Chancerubbage@arstechnica It is important to keep in mind that your corporate publisher Condé Nast may have a vested interest in allowing AI generated images to be protected by copyright.
Perhaps the story needs a disclaimer to this effect.
B’Mal Suj@arstechnica
Bad take.
Bad take.
Joshua A.C. Newman@arstechnica This same argument implies that it’s not workable to require that copyright works not be plagiarized from another human.
Additionally, the whole function of copyright is to incentivize human artists to generate work to put into the Public Domain. Allowing AI work to be copyrighted does not do that. Instead, it eliminates human artists, putting them in competition with corporate content generators.
Michael Busch@arstechnica This opinion is bad.
Why would you publish someone advocating for legalizing automated plagiarism?
Do the hate-clicks on this piece outweigh the idea of everything ever published on your site being stolen, scrambled up, and reposted?