[satvikpendem]

Nice concept, just don't expect to have any copyright to the (images in the) comic, as the USPTO has mentioned [0]. If you used an AI text generator as well, expect to not have copyright to that either. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, copyrights and patents are inherently anticompetitive.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/22/23611278/midjourney-ai-co...

[mejutoco]

You could always retouch the images in photoshop. I believe that ruling was for fully generated AI, with no retouch afterwards.

[mirashii]

That interpretation probably does not pass muster. The guidance from the US Copyright Office leans on substantial human authorship or creative changes or interpretation of the output of AI generative tools.

Probably better to just link the actual guidance, it’s only a couple pages.

https://copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf

[mejutoco]

From the linked document. To me this is the same interpretation, but IANAL.

Individuals who use AI technology in creating a work may claim copyright protection for their own contributions to that work. They must use the Standard Application, 39 and in it identify the author(s) and provide a brief statement in the “Author Created” field that describes the authorship that was contributed by a human. For example, an applicant who incorporates AI-generated text into a larger textual work should claim the portions of the textual work that is human-authored. And an applicant who creatively arranges the human and non-human content within a work should fill out the “Author Created” field to claim: “Selection, coordination, and arrangement of [describe human- authored content] created by the author and [describe AI content] generated by artificial intelligence.”

In particular, this sentence:

> “Selection, coordination, and arrangement of [describe human- authored content] created by the author and [describe AI content] generated by artificial intelligence.”

Sounds to me like a DJ selection or like Duchamp's found objects as the creative element.

[MattPalmer1086]

Lengthy copyright may be uncompetitive, but the absence of it would also be surely? If I create something and an already large business can just take it and use it without any recompense, doesn't that merely entrench their market position?

Can you explain your reasoning?

[danielheath]

> If I create something and an already large business can just take it and use it without any recompense, doesn't that merely entrench their market position?

There's already numerous posts from artists claiming their work was copied verbatim (or near-verbatim) by major corps. Fighting it in court will take years and cost a fortune they don't have.

[MattPalmer1086]

That may be, but is the solution to get rid of what little protection they legally have?

[danielheath]

If it's not protecting them, and it's causing other harms?

[MattPalmer1086]

You would have to demonstrate that the harms far outweigh the goods for all works protected by copyright, not just the poor artists you mention.

Law is never perfect. I agree if it does more harm than good for most then it should be replaced.

[Hamuko]

>If I create something and an already large business can just take it and use it without any recompense, doesn't that merely entrench their market position?

Isn't that the entire basis of OpenAI and GPT?

[thih9]

What if the human author considers the AI as a tool and does not credit the AI in any way?

[satvikpendem]

There's the rub, isn't it? At a certain point of AI progression, if you don't point it out, no one would know it's AI, as it's indistinguishable from a human creation. Even tools based on AI to detect AI creations will themselves succumb to the fact that the generator AI can use the information gleaned by the discriminator AI to improve; this is in fact how generative adversarial networks work.

I wonder if soon in the future highly skilled humans will have to prove their works weren't made by AI.

[mirashii]

> If the Office becomes aware that information essential to its evaluation of registrability “has been omitted entirely from the application or is questionable,” it may take steps to cancel the registration. 44 Separately, a court may disregard a registration in an infringement action pursuant to section 411(b) of the Copyright Act if it concludes that the applicant knowingly provided the Office with inaccurate information, and the accurate information would have resulted in the refusal of the registration.

From https://copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf

[antifa]

Is the distinction between generating full works via AI and using AI in a manor indistinguishable from Grammarly respected when admitting to any use of AI?