[nsomaru]

I looked this up the other day and I might be wrong but it seems like in most jurisdictions even if you buy a meatspace piece of art you do not own the actual copyright on the work.

While I’m not a fan of NFTs this does somewhat weaken the proposition that any “rights” cannot be sold with NFTs because IIRC this is the status quo in meatspace art purchases too.

[fnord123]

There are no rights to Bored Ape works. They are algorithmically generated so they are public domain.

[abyrne10]

I'm not sure it's true that something being algorithmically generated means it's public domain. Plenty of assets for things like video games are procedurally generated, but that doesn't mean they're public domain by default.

[fnord123]

> Plenty of assets for things like video games are procedurally generated, but that doesn't mean they're public domain by default.

It does mean that.

[abyrne10]

Going by this definition of public domain, I don’t see how this could be the case:

> The public domain consists of all the creative work to which no exclusive intellectual property rights apply[0]

Think of it this way. Imagine I wrote some code, and when I ran it it generated a piece of art. Surely I would have IP rights over the artwork? Otherwise you could make the same argument about art made with a somehow automatic paintbrush I built.

I hope I’m not talking at cross-purposes here and using a completely different definition of “public domain” was was intended, apologies if this is the case.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

[fnord123]

There is a difference between the concept of a computer being a "clever pencil", which you are referring to, and the computer generating weapons and gear to generate a drop from a selection of "$ELEMENT $LEVEL $WEAPON $MODIFIER" (e.g. fiery epic hammer of orc skull crushing) which is equivalent to generating all of them (not copyrightable).

Now, the individual visual components of the weapons could have a copyright but the computationally assemblaged work based on the components would not because they've just run a job to "generate all the permutations".

For something like No Man's Sky, which is extremely procedurally generated I reckon it's very grey and they could try to make a case but the actual world they generated for people to play in would not be protected by copright. I don't think it's well tested in court.

In the case of the monkeys the hat, the basemonkey, and sunglasses could have a copyright but the assembled monkeys generated by a computer with no creativity would not. But it's a derivative work of things with copyright so that aspect becomes super grey.

The UK government issued a call for views to figure this area out and try to legislate it. Hopefully something useful comes of it. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intel...

[abyrne10]

That’s really interesting, thank you.

As you say, it seems like there’s a significant grey area that needs to be resolved, and I could see it being quite difficult to figure out where to draw the line in practice.

[ygjb]

I am aware of the legal discussions around the hypotheticals, but has that actually been tested in court?

Define algorithmically generated? There are certainly tools for randomizing the mix of image elements that are present in a piece of art, and combining them, but does that only apply if I used a computer to do it? What if I draw 300 reference images, photocopy them, cut them out, and sit down with a set of dice and tables, and make collages using glue?

Does the inclusion of random noise as a processing step in creating digital art count as algorithmically generated?

What if I use a custom programmed brush that simulates the randomness of physical brush bristles to simulate in a digital painting?

[jcranmer]

The US Copyright Office notes that "Similarly, the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.", and lists in its examples:

> A claim based on a mechanical weaving process that randomly produces irregular shapes in the fabric without any discernible pattern.

That is so specific that I have to believe there was a court case where someone attempted to claim copyright for that kind of process.

But to answer your question to define algorithmically generated, the requirement is that “whether the ‘work’ is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.”

(Citation to: https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-..., see §313.2).

[VHRanger]

What's the precedent on algorithmic art being public domain?

Is AI art (eg. VQGAN+CLIP stuff) public domain? Doesn't the seed image and text prompt constitute artistic work?

How about using photoshop smart features like autofilling?

At what point is the threshold placed?

[conjectures]

> Is AI art (eg. VQGAN+CLIP stuff) public domain?

Iirc cdpa 1988 in the UK holds it to be copyright of the authors of the program. But I'd be surprised if the law was a comfortable fit for practice 30 years on, or that it had been tested much in court.

[pessimizer]

The people who bought the pitchbook for the Dune movie that was never made should have looked it up, too.