Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by echelon 625 days ago
Real AI artists are spending hundreds of hours and their human labor is absolutely copyrightable.

There are three types of labor-intensive AI art: (1) ComfyUI node graph editing, (2) canvas-based compositions that use AI as a filter or brush, and (3) large multi-day compositions typically built for film and gaming. Sometimes all of these manual and laborious methodologies are employed for one work.

We're so past the "prompting" phase: artists are building complicated workflows, manually drawing and sketching on diffusion canvases, and spending days precisely rendering the videos that they want. It's more like Photoshop combined with custom-built shader pipelines than Midjourney. Or a long virtual filming and editing process with deliberate intention.

You wouldn't call algorithmic manipulation by Photoshop non-copyrightable. If AI is just a "brush" employed by a human, and the human is doing a substantial amount of work, it shouldn't render the entire work uncopyrightable.

If you'd like to see what actual AI artists are doing, check these out to get started:

https://www.reddit.com/r/comfyui/

https://www.reddit.com/r/aivideo/

Here's something that was "prompted", but that took days of effort in pre-production, composing, and editing:

https://www.reddit.com/r/aivideo/comments/1ftvole/ouroboros_...

Here's something else that was built up from lots of node graphs and drawing and editing. This is a tremendously complicated work:

https://www.reddit.com/r/comfyui/comments/1fse25a/putting_th...

You can't possibly tell me that these are uncopyrightable.

And while you may or may not like these pieces yet, there is clearly something incredible is happening here. These are real artists. And as individual creators and small teams, they will soon be capable of taking on the likes of studios like Pixar without the millions of dollars of capital the big studios have employed.

5 comments

Within the US' jurisdiction, the USPTO has ruled NO.
Not really - they've ruled that the output of those flows may not be protected in some cases, but the actual node based comfy-ui flow is almost certainly something you can protect.

Further, the official guidance was delayed again until later this month, and is currently open for comments: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/09/17/2024-21...

I don't think I agree. I know a woman who live by copying paintings (huge ones usually, only saw her copy 2-6m wide painting) in different museums, then sell the copy to buyers who want them in his manor. She doesn't copy 1 for 1 (it's impossible to get all the brush strokes right, even though she spend days studying them), and in fact specialize in 3 specific styles to avoid visible divergence, but her work isn't copyrightable. She spend arguably way, waaaaaay more time on her paintings than 'ai artists' (I met her in a art museum in Lille where she was halfway through the painting after 2 months, she became fast friend with my dad though, spent hours speaking about pigment and brush techniques), that doesn't make her work any more copyrighted.
If that's the case then they are sampling previous artists and need to pay them.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't necessarily agree either.

I think the most compelling reference work right now is probably a collage.

> a piece of art made by sticking various different materials such as photographs and pieces of paper or fabric on to a backing.

And the law there is actually pretty nuanced and tangled: A collage, while not a compilation, may be a collective or a derivative work. A collective work has copyright protection, but a derivative work does not.

So basically, given the current environment I think we're honing in on a super clear and very helpful "sometimes"...

It's about who created the work (book, painting, code, etc). If it's a human, then it's copyrightable. If it's an AI, then it's not. That's the stance the copyright office has been taking, going so far as to grant partial copyrights if a human substantially changes portions of an AI generated work.
> If that's the case then they are sampling previous artists and need to pay them.

Adobe's models are 100% trained on works they own or license the copyright to.

Synthetic datasets are being built in Unreal Engine and with automated photo turn tables.

This argument is going to lose merit soon.

> This argument is going to lose merit soon.

When midjourney and all other models built upon copyrighted work they had no license to disappears (and any models which were in turn trained on the output of Midjourney et.al.), perhaps.

> Adobe's models are 100% trained on works they own or license the copyright to.

I have to ask, was the license broadly interpreted to include AI training, or was that part of the original license? Because the former is what Google is doing right now with their video AI and scraping youtube.

For completeness sake, Adobe does not appear to have taken Google's lead in this.
But the prompt should be copyrightable?
A prompt is like an idea, it is not copyrightable. Imagine giving a copyright to a discussion?

But nothing force you to reveal the prompt you used assuming you are using the right tool for protecting your secrets.

Talk podcasts are copyrighted. I'm not sure why you think a discussion wouldn't be copyrightable.
This stuff isn't really prompt oriented.
The prompts and node graphs are copyrightable human work product, but not the images, so publish your beautiful prompts and node graphs instead.
This isn't "prompting" is the point. By some merits, there's way more work put into this than pointing and shooting a camera.