|
|
|
|
|
|
by aiappreciator
1211 days ago
|
|
|
"it encourages commercial projects to hire human artists so that they can gain the protection of copyright" How is this relevant to AI copyright? If AI art is copyrightable, they'd still need someone to generate the AI art. That person is an 'artist' in the legal sense, regardless if they can draw or not.
If AI art is not copyrightable, they can still hire a non-artist (fully outsourcable), to do some minor post-editing of the AI art, and copyright it. |
|
|
I'm arguing that they shouldn't be able to do that either. If a company wants to create something protected by copyright they should hire a human to do it. If they don't care about the copyright, then they can take advantage of AI generated art and everyone else can use the result for whatever they want. It makes it easy. If an AI made it, no copyright. If a human made it, copyright. There's no bickering over whether or not someone spent enough time post-editing or coming up with the perfect prompt. Artists stay employable, more artistic works gets into the public domain and there are no restrictions on how AI generated art can be used and no opportunity for copyright trolls to abuse the system. Everybody wins.