[DigitallyFidget]

Per United States law, imagery/art/music/text/photography generated by non-human means (such as machinery, animals, or generative AI) cannot hold copyright. https://copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-auth... Section 306 on page 7.

I'm not sure how it'll hold up in law to claim copyright violations against something that wasn't created by a person. It'll really depend on the lawyers and judge's interpretation of written law. But I'm curious to see what comes of this.

[zanfr]

hmm then it meants generative music, as in say brian eno's experiments aren't copyrighted?

[jimbobimbo]

Did he ever use AI to generate music? As opposed to crafting and using an algorithm, in which case the computer is just an instrument, like synthesizer is.

[iwontberude]

I guess so! Good point.

[sgt101]

So on your interpretation if I photocopy a book and then sell the photocopies to my friends there is no infringment?

I don't think so, but hey, a photocopier is a machine and it generated the book so should be ok!

[DigitallyFidget]

That isn't my interpretation, nor did I ever make that statement. That IS infact a valid definition of copyright infringement. The source material is copyrighted and you're making a literal copy of it via photocopier. I don't know how you twisted the logic on that to conclude that would not be infringement.

However, it does also depend what you do with the photocopies, merely photocopying a book and keeping it privately is on par with copying a music CD as a backup. The infringement occurs when you're reusing it as your own, such as selling, publishing, or broadcasting the copyrighted material.

What I stated is that generated art such as images/music/photos that are by a non human cannot be copyrighted. A photocopier isn't generating anything, it's a copy, it's replication and it isn't generating a new thing.

My personal opinion is that AI generated artwork should be treated as equal to fanart when generating copyright influenced material.