[doh]

The interesting thing about AI generated content is that it can't be copyrighted in US [0]. This impacts the intrinsic value of the art, which is quite significant reason behind why people collect it in the first place [1].

AI is to art what Ikea is to furniture. Bringing utility to masses but the bespoke market is live and well. In fact, I would argue that the bespoke market is doing better because the utility is so well covered and many want to differentiate themselves from the masses.

I believe AI will help filling up the blanks and picking up the grunt work, like in games generating textures of the walls or generating a jungle, but the story, the characters, ... will be produced by people. Not because AI can't do it, but because they will want to have copyright protection and be able to build on potential success. I believe this is going to be true across the board as more and more people make living from their creativity.

[0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-offic...

[1] https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691134031/ta...

[nanidin]

The outcome of the case you linked is that the AI cannot be the author, not that works created using AI can’t be copyrighted.

[doh]

That's the correct legal interpretation. What that means in simplified lingo is that AI can't author copyrighted material, meaning that AI tools that aids to creation is ok but AI producing creation is not.

The outstanding question is where is the limit, but that will require a few court cases.

[nanidin]

I don’t think it’s a far leap to consider AI a tool, much like a digital camera. In the case of the camera, the human provides inputs and conditions, then the camera produces a digital image. In the case of AI, the human provides inputs and conditions, then the AI produces a digital image.

The case in question was a PR stunt intended to get the AI recognized as the author in order to build clout for the company that created the AI. “Look, a judge determined that our AI is so advanced that it can be the author of works of art, and is therefore a person.” It’s similar to stunts that try to get courts to recognize god as real or not real.

The fundamental question was not whether the work could be copyrighted or not - only whether the AI could be listed as the author of the work. It would be similar to if I tried to register a copyright with my digital camera listed as the author of the work. A camera is not a person, so it cannot be the author.

[doh]

This case is not a PR stunt. This is a test case that was purposely picked to test the law. This is quite common to find boundaries of any law and see if there is an opening for a commercial success.

This is a landmark case that will be referenced for quite some time and have significant impact on future cases around production with the aid of tools.

I like your analogy on the digital camera, but this is really not limited to this one case. For instance the case of monkey's selfie [0] is quite well known and touches on similar questions. This is obviously not a tool, nor object but it's also not a human.

We will have to find out where the boundaries lie between the tool is an aid and the tool is the source of creativity.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

[MattRix]

How much authorship is needed to claim copyright though? If the creation is made by a combination of AI and human, then there must be a certain point where it becomes copyrightable, a fact that many AI art generation services will exploit.

[nanidin]

The case in question was a PR stunt intended to get the AI recognized as the author in order to build clout for the company that created the AI. “Look, a judge determined that our AI is so advanced that it can be the author of works of art, and is therefore a person.” It’s similar to stunts that try to get courts to recognize god as real or not real.

The fundamental question was not whether the work could be copyrighted or not - only whether the AI could be listed as the author of the work. It would be similar to if I tried to register a copyright with my digital camera listed as the author of the work. A camera is not a person, so it cannot be the author.

[doh]

It's a good question, one that has not been answered yet. We will have to wait for some court cases to have this answer.