[dvngnt_]

looks like the crux is that supposedly ai-generated images don't have copyright protections

> When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship.

> As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.

but i think that's only if it's entirely prompt driven. you could argue that manual edits or additions would allow it to to have copyright?

[sgc]

According to my communications with the US copyright office, you never get a global copyright by editing. At best you get a copyright on your changes - and that only if they are copywritable on their own. Minor changes to wording or tweaking an image would generally not pass that threshold. It is a case by case judgment as to the status of any individual change.

[falcolas]

This is backed up by how they have granted copyright to an AI generated and human edited book. The human only gets to get copyright on the parts they "significantly altered".

There was a news report on it awhile back that was interesting to read.

[mcintyre1994]

Also the other way - if you use an AI tool to edit an original image, is the output copyrightable? Is the answer different if the AI thing is doing a generative fill vs a bigger change? I guess this is the more financially important version of when Facebook was tagging any use of AI-powered tools in eg Photoshop as an AI generated image.

[Manuel_D]

Photoshop is an AI tool. For several years now, inpainting and other Photoshop tools have been powered by AI.

[mcintyre1994]

Yep agreed. My understanding is that Adobe add some sort of metadata if you use those AI powered tools, and Facebook were displaying AI generated image if you uploaded an image with that metadata present. I guess I'm just curious whether the output of those tools can be copyrighted. Is it a boolean like Facebook treated it, where as soon as you use any of these tools it can't be copyrighted, or is it more complicated?

[fuzzfactor]

From a more abstract viewpoint, what's the difference between any computer-aided editing at all versus none whatsoever?

For instance some people have always had more advanced editing programs than others, or different performance levels of their hardware to run the software which makes/allows the final product to be more effortless than the mainstream by far. Effectively with significantly different output from the same input, all unique no matter how you try to make all your PC's run the same, kind of like a video game where you get better resolution or framerate when you have more advanced hardware and/or software. Sometimes just a little bit better which could be considered incremental. Sometimes much more than that which can astound as a major leap.

When somebody comes along with a much more powerful hardware or software arrangement to output the same class of data, is it supposed to kick them out just because it's a major milestone that can not be ignored?

You could start with something like a completely original watercolor, and very well be using the exact same PC but naturally get two distinct printouts from the same digital file simply from using two different printers. With more significant differences than if one would have been touched by AI and the other one not.

Regardless of copyright, the person who submits the winning image to an image contest should really be the one to take home the prize.