|
> The decision about where to take a picture, what settings to use, and how to take it is the creativity that grants the image copyright. Indeed that is the case! And all the factors that you are talking about, could apply just as much to AI art. I am glad that you reject this idea, that "Lul, its writing a prompt, dude, therefore AI Art can't be copyrighted!" > but if that was the entire creative input > it's the human creativity that matters. Sure, if we want to say that someone spending 10 seconds, writing a 3 word prompt isn't much human input, fine. But, for anyone who has spent more than an hour, messing around with AI art, you will quickly learn that there is so much more to AI art than the degenerate case. > The person making a conscious decision about where to stand, what settings to use, and when to press the button is viewed by the law as a creative act that requires creative skill and execution. All of which can be applied to AI art. It can be so much more complicated, than the stupid argument that I see over an over again, which is "Lul, the computer did it. No human input". To give a personal example, one thing that I did, was that I created a dreambooth, fine tuned model, for creating magic items, for the game Dungeons and Dragons. https://huggingface.co/stale2000/sd-dnditem It took me about 100 hours, over the course of 2 weeks, to get this art generator, exactly right. And the process involved, not just typing a few words like "Give me magic fire sword please". Instead, it involved the process of collecting, modifying, captioning, and combining exactly the correct training set of images, into my training set, recreating and retraining my model over a dozen times, until I could get it to do even close to what I wanted. Even one bad image or one bad setting, that I put in my training set, could screw up the whole model, or make the swords look weird, or mess up the painting style, or any numerous actual creative differences. > If the argument is that prompt generation is more than that, and that it takes more skill, then fine That is what it is, for anyone who has done anything in AI art. But people's brains for some reason, stop working when they are faced with the fact that there is so much more that you can do with this stuff, and the stupid strawman case of "lul, I just typed a couple words into a prompt! No human input!". |
I'm just trying to point out, it doesn't have anything to do with the button, or AI, or technology. It's not a good analogy for people to say "you just point a camera at a thing, and that deserves copyright" -- if that was the case, the camera wouldn't get copyright either. Neither prompt-generation nor photography is getting granted copyright based on the decision to press a button, there has to be something more complex going on in both situations for copyright to get involved.
An accidental photograph, a photograph that's made by simply iterating over every possibility in a space, a photograph that's a reconstruction of an existing copyrighted work without changes, etc, etc... none of those are copyrightable, and that they're made with a camera doesn't make them copyrightable. IP law for photography is the same as for anything else; the machine isn't the important part.
In the scenario you describe, if someone mounts a camera someplace and two people press a button and get the exact same photo -- I would be surprised if that second photo has copyright protection, it probably doesn't meet a threshold for human creativity.