Yes and no. In theory yes, but (and it's a big but) if you use AI art which is based on copyrighted material, you can still expect to be sued. You will be able to defend yourself in court by saying that since it's AI, it's okay. The other party will present a counter like "we own the copyright on those characters, you cannot just use them." Which way the judge will decide remains to be seen.
This can never be copyrighted. Much like you can't claim ownership over a plant species, even if you discovered it, youcan only claim copyright over things created by human labor. If things not created by human labour could be copyrighted, than I dare to ask you all to pay me for looking at the sun.
@@revimfadli4666 No, I don't think so. In the past there was a case where someone tried to copyright a phone book, but got rejected. The explanation of the judge was, that while a human labor was put in gathering and sorting the data, that data itself was not made by human labor.
"We trained it using copywriteted works there for we own the copywrite" By that logic They would own the copywrite to anything a human brain that has seen their works has made. After all neural networks are just a crude attempt at making a brain simulation in a computer. So if by the time we do have a court that understands even the most basic parts of how this tech works, then they will toss it out.
I think this case could go like this: It would be ruled that you have to be a developer of the AI to make copyright, so corporations or people would have to get a software developer to create their work, I speculate the price would be rather high considering what they're dealing with. If businesses or people want to make a copyright of AI-generated art without paying a ton for a programmer, they would have to simply be inspired by it, and create a separate work on their own or with an employee.
@@GreggInkCodes This Isn't like a camera. You would have to have knowledge on the angles of the shot, find the right moment and time to take the picture, a significant amount of ingenuity would have to be placed in. With AI art, all you do is type in your idea and the AI does the heavy lifting by creating the picture. The only thing the human did was have a raw idea, and last time checked, raw ideas can't be copyrighted.
@@thinkbetter5286 You don't need a lot of ingenuity to take a picture. You just need to press a button. You need ingenuity to take a nice picture but that doesn't matter for the law. You have copyright even over crappy pictures. You can have copyright over a picture that was just a raw idea. Just point the camera and shoot. You own the copyright regardless of the quality of the resulting image.
@@GreggInkCodes A cameraman has the raw idea of taking a picture, he grabs his camera, and takes a picture, he chooses what to take a photo of, where it would be, and how he wants it, crappy or not, he was the person to create the picture. When someone types their raw idea in the AI art generator, they don't have a choice in what the AI dispenses, even if they get specific, it's never the process they would take in creating a picture. If someone were to get an artist to draw them some pictures based on a loose idea he had, and picks the one he likes the most, then claims it's his without the artist's consent, is he really in the right?
@@thinkbetter5286 Copyright breaks down into 2 sections. The right to be recognized as the creator and the right to commercially benefit from the work. The former is unalienable (i.e. cannot be taken away from the artist), the latter can be sold, licensed, leased, etc. If you hire an artist to do the work, the artist has the right to be recognized as the creator of the work. If you claim it's yours (with or without the artist's consent), then that's not right. This kind of happens with ghost writing, which I don't agree with. But if you hire an artist to produce the art, you own the latter part of the copyright and you can commercially use it, which is all companies usually care about.
But I still don't understand how someone can recognize it is generated by AI in the first place :D? You can make the same images in many different "analog" programs like Photoshop etc. So who is to say that you didn't make it? Am I crazy here or is this a huge loophole in plain sight :O?
Good point. I think your argument: "One would never know an AI did it" is only strengthening my case that AI-generated images should be copyrightable. Otherwise companies will be incentivized to lie about the origin of the work.
No matter were it falls, we would have the simple issue of "very easy assemble creativity". As by mearly entering a text and pressing a button you have created a new copyright. And you can do it in millions. When a law like that passes, then it will most likely create a massive goldrush. To a point were I feel like copyright will lose its value. If a simple thoght alone is enogh to create any copyright, than many will share the same one, especelly as now everyone can easely fix it to a tangible medium. And in Copyright you also need to prove accessibility, that actuall copying has occurred. If two similar works have been created independent of each other, then both authors would have a valid copyright to basically the same piece. I feel that proving that someone's AI work was not created independently, especially if it just took a sentence to create, will be tough. On to top the sentence is akin to the source code in a computer program. The sentence is your code and the AI is the compiler. And reverse engineering is legal as long as you create it independently without looking at the source code. So if you independently guess the sentence (the instructions) to create the same image, then you didn't break any copyright. That's why people are able to create console emulators legaly .
Can you please tell me if generating an image of Elon Musk using an image generation program like Midjourney with artificial intelligence and the new generated image looks roughly the same, slightly pixelated, will it violate the law on copy rights?
Number one: I am not a lawyer. Number two: I am certain a lot more ink will be spilled over AI and a lot of lawsuits will happen in the future to help sort out these issues. But briefly: yes. if you slightly pixelate an image of a copyrighted work and use it for your own purposes, you commit copyright infringement. The fact that the pixelation was done by an AI doesn't change that. Software like midjourney should have only used materials that either were in the public domain or materials for which they had permission. Training an AI on copyrighted images and then have substantial sections of said images in a new image is copyright infringement. I don't know much about Midjourney but, as I understand, they just grabbed whatever from the internet. I would be surprised if they didn't get sued eventually. A similar lawsuit is currently ongoing against github. They used code submitted to their platform to train their AI (called copilot) without permission from the owners of the code. (www.infoworld.com/article/3679748/github-faces-lawsuit-over-copilot-coding-tool.html)
So far, the approach states take varies. Some recognise copyright of ai generated works. While others don't. The EU recently made recognition of ai generated work possible. This is in contrast to the old traditional view. Whether one approach is better than the other is up to each. However it is likely that the new approach may prove to be detrimental especially to people whose occupation is dependent on their skills, as their works may now be massed produced through AI generations.
Is there a slight possibility that the owner of the AI may steal your copyright claims by saying his AI was the actual creator of the art instead of you who used the AI to create it? I mean is there any possibility of such claims actually become a law or precedent?
Im kind of stupid. So does this mean any AI art created by anyone ever is up for grabs to be used by anyone else with no consequences?
Yes and no. In theory yes, but (and it's a big but) if you use AI art which is based on copyrighted material, you can still expect to be sued. You will be able to defend yourself in court by saying that since it's AI, it's okay. The other party will present a counter like "we own the copyright on those characters, you cannot just use them." Which way the judge will decide remains to be seen.
This can never be copyrighted. Much like you can't claim ownership over a plant species, even if you discovered it, youcan only claim copyright over things created by human labor. If things not created by human labour could be copyrighted, than I dare to ask you all to pay me for looking at the sun.
AI is made by humans so it's indirectly made by human labour.
@Superflan You can definitely copyright the AI (it's just software).
If certain artistic depictions were true, then could collages of stolen image pieces be copyrightable
@@revimfadli4666 No, I don't think so. In the past there was a case where someone tried to copyright a phone book, but got rejected. The explanation of the judge was, that while a human labor was put in gathering and sorting the data, that data itself was not made by human labor.
"We trained it using copywriteted works there for we own the copywrite" By that logic They would own the copywrite to anything a human brain that has seen their works has made. After all neural networks are just a crude attempt at making a brain simulation in a computer. So if by the time we do have a court that understands even the most basic parts of how this tech works, then they will toss it out.
So should code have rights now?
Can my script vote for either Democrats or Republicans, as well?
@@halafradrimx Only if you think ants should get to vote, your "AI" has less brain power then one.
@@halafradrimx yes. yes they can.
I think this case could go like this:
It would be ruled that you have to be a developer of the AI to make copyright, so corporations or people would have to get a software developer to create their work, I speculate the price would be rather high considering what they're dealing with.
If businesses or people want to make a copyright of AI-generated art without paying a ton for a programmer, they would have to simply be inspired by it, and create a separate work on their own or with an employee.
I doubt this will happen. You don't need to manufacture a camera to have copyright on the pictures. You merely need to have pressed the button.
@@GreggInkCodes This Isn't like a camera. You would have to have knowledge on the angles of the shot, find the right moment and time to take the picture, a significant amount of ingenuity would have to be placed in.
With AI art, all you do is type in your idea and the AI does the heavy lifting by creating the picture. The only thing the human did was have a raw idea, and last time checked, raw ideas can't be copyrighted.
@@thinkbetter5286 You don't need a lot of ingenuity to take a picture. You just need to press a button. You need ingenuity to take a nice picture but that doesn't matter for the law. You have copyright even over crappy pictures. You can have copyright over a picture that was just a raw idea. Just point the camera and shoot. You own the copyright regardless of the quality of the resulting image.
@@GreggInkCodes A cameraman has the raw idea of taking a picture, he grabs his camera, and takes a picture, he chooses what to take a photo of, where it would be, and how he wants it, crappy or not, he was the person to create the picture.
When someone types their raw idea in the AI art generator, they don't have a choice in what the AI dispenses, even if they get specific, it's never the process they would take in creating a picture.
If someone were to get an artist to draw them some pictures based on a loose idea he had, and picks the one he likes the most, then claims it's his without the artist's consent, is he really in the right?
@@thinkbetter5286 Copyright breaks down into 2 sections. The right to be recognized as the creator and the right to commercially benefit from the work. The former is unalienable (i.e. cannot be taken away from the artist), the latter can be sold, licensed, leased, etc.
If you hire an artist to do the work, the artist has the right to be recognized as the creator of the work. If you claim it's yours (with or without the artist's consent), then that's not right. This kind of happens with ghost writing, which I don't agree with.
But if you hire an artist to produce the art, you own the latter part of the copyright and you can commercially use it, which is all companies usually care about.
But I still don't understand how someone can recognize it is generated by AI in the first place :D? You can make the same images in many different "analog" programs like Photoshop etc. So who is to say that you didn't make it? Am I crazy here or is this a huge loophole in plain sight :O?
Good point. I think your argument: "One would never know an AI did it" is only strengthening my case that AI-generated images should be copyrightable. Otherwise companies will be incentivized to lie about the origin of the work.
No matter were it falls, we would have the simple issue of "very easy assemble creativity". As by mearly entering a text and pressing a button you have created a new copyright. And you can do it in millions. When a law like that passes, then it will most likely create a massive goldrush. To a point were I feel like copyright will lose its value.
If a simple thoght alone is enogh to create any copyright, than many will share the same one, especelly as now everyone can easely fix it to a tangible medium. And in Copyright you also need to prove accessibility, that actuall copying has occurred. If two similar works have been created independent of each other, then both authors would have a valid copyright to basically the same piece. I feel that proving that someone's AI work was not created independently, especially if it just took a sentence to create, will be tough.
On to top the sentence is akin to the source code in a computer program. The sentence is your code and the AI is the compiler. And reverse engineering is legal as long as you create it independently without looking at the source code. So if you independently guess the sentence (the instructions) to create the same image, then you didn't break any copyright. That's why people are able to create console emulators legaly .
Can you please tell me if generating an image of Elon Musk using an image generation program like Midjourney with artificial intelligence and the new generated image looks roughly the same, slightly pixelated, will it violate the law on copy rights?
Number one: I am not a lawyer.
Number two: I am certain a lot more ink will be spilled over AI and a lot of lawsuits will happen in the future to help sort out these issues.
But briefly: yes. if you slightly pixelate an image of a copyrighted work and use it for your own purposes, you commit copyright infringement. The fact that the pixelation was done by an AI doesn't change that.
Software like midjourney should have only used materials that either were in the public domain or materials for which they had permission. Training an AI on copyrighted images and then have substantial sections of said images in a new image is copyright infringement. I don't know much about Midjourney but, as I understand, they just grabbed whatever from the internet. I would be surprised if they didn't get sued eventually.
A similar lawsuit is currently ongoing against github. They used code submitted to their platform to train their AI (called copilot) without permission from the owners of the code. (www.infoworld.com/article/3679748/github-faces-lawsuit-over-copilot-coding-tool.html)
Thank you so much for this video is starting to answer so many question's and concerns i have with A.I. generated art & possibly using it for business
So far, the approach states take varies. Some recognise copyright of ai generated works. While others don't. The EU recently made recognition of ai generated work possible. This is in contrast to the old traditional view. Whether one approach is better than the other is up to each. However it is likely that the new approach may prove to be detrimental especially to people whose occupation is dependent on their skills, as their works may now be massed produced through AI generations.
Is there a slight possibility that the owner of the AI may steal your copyright claims by saying his AI was the actual creator of the art instead of you who used the AI to create it? I mean is there any possibility of such claims actually become a law or precedent?
? ᑭяỖｍｏ??