[therealpygon]

In short, in situation 1 there is no issue. In situation 2, if the original image can be copyrighted, AI tooling to augment the image doesn’t prevent copyright. The copyright offices guidance on the subject is a worthwhile read, since they detail out the difference between using AI as a tool to modify human authorship, vs the AI taking minimal input alone and generating a resulting image.

[thatcat]

What if the ai augments the shutter timing because you were shaking? The ai monkey pressed the shutter so no copyright I guess? Pretty sure several apps do this on night photo mode.

[d1sxeyes]

Then I would assume it’d be treated as a tool in the creative process, similarly to a ruler helping you draw a straight line, but the author is still the human.

But they say when you assume you make an ass out of you and me, and we all know the law is an ass, so who knows.

[nightski]

"Minimal input" like pushing a button on a camera? Seems to me that is more minimal than some of the elaborate prompting it takes to get AI to output a desired image.

[bredren]

It goes away beyond this. You can create your own custom Lora. The tags that go into that, combined with prompting is sophisticated authorship.

It can be reasonably be considered technical than handling a professional camera.

[bmicraft]

I guess if the prompt is complex enough to be protected then the image would be too?

[brewtide]

Gotta be 1,000 words.

[kadoban]

> Gotta be 1,000 words.

What? Why? There's poems and stories shorter than that that must be copyrightable.

[ben_w]

There's a saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words".

Regarding poetry, while I share your sentiment, what I notice in these discussions is that the emotional response to "done by AI" vs. "done by human" (or, on other forums, "done by furry") counts for a lot.