[saelthavron]

> The AI thing is no different. If I ask my human friend, "please paint a picture using your vast knowledge and experience", then my friend gets the copyright. Replace friend with AI; there is no person to assign the copyright, so there is no copyright. It doesn't default to me just because I asked for it.

Why should an "AI" be considered a who rather than just another tool? To me, current "AI" are image manipulation program and camera replacements instead of people replacement.

[dylan604]

People do not say that Adobe owns copyright when someone uses their tool to create an image. However, I could see some weasel words being added to EULAs especially regarding all of the new "AI" tools being shoe horned into the apps. They've already added weasel words to their cloud storage for training purposes. After all, a lawyer is going to lawyer.

[slavik81]

It's not that the AI is considered a person. It's that your inputs were the same in both cases, and it's your creative input that justifies the copyright.

If your creative input was insufficient to justify granting you copyrights in one case, they would also be insufficient in the other case, as the inputs were identical in both cases.

[soerxpso]

In the case mentioned above where someone just spins around in their chair and takes a random photo on their phone (which they would then own the rights to), did that person really do any 'creative input'? All they did was press a button on a tool, with no further thought. That actually seems like less creative input than when I type a prompt into a tool and hit 'generate'. Why are cameras, image editors, etc, tools in a way that stable diffusion is not?

[Aloisius]

If you can show that no human creative expression was involved in composition, timing, etc, then no, it's not copyrightable.

There's a very good argument for security camera footage not being copyrightable for that very reason. There just hasn't been any case law yet to test it.