this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
429 points (97.4% liked)

News

23287 readers
4476 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

An artist who infamously duped an art contest with an AI image is suing the U.S. Copyright Office over its refusal to register the image’s copyright. 

In the lawsuit, Jason M. Allen asks a Colorado federal court to reverse the Copyright Office’s decision on his artwork Theatre D’opera Spatialbecause it was an expression of his creativity.

Reuters says the Copyright Office refused to comment on the case while Allen in a statement complains that the office’s decision “put me in a terrible position, with no recourse against others who are blatantly and repeatedly stealing my work.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You can copyright a combination of words, though, and it was his unique combination that created the art

so its literature, then?

The artist doesn’t copyright the palette, and the shop that sold the pigments holds no ownership over the painting.

Sure, the artist doesn't copyright a palette, or the shop does not hold ownership of pigments. But Companies do patent pigments.

If the art is created with paint, pixels, or phrase, the final product belongs to the artist, and so should be protected by law for them.

If you commission an Art piece, with a detailed description of what it should display. The artist comes back to you with a draft, you tell them to adjust here and there, and you finally after several rounds of drafting got the commissioned art piece. Did you draw it?

Thats what LLMs do and nothing else.

[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Is the diction of the buyer to the artist in the final paragraph of your argument make the painting a novel? You have you answer.

Yes, companies can copyright specific pigments, but that doesn't give them ownership over the paintings created by them, only protect for their own IP vis-à-vis the pigments. In the same way, the company that created the LLM may protect their work but hold no ownership on the art it produces.

Who drew the art is of no import when the artist isn't a sentient lifeform. By your definition, a photographer cannot own a picture because the camera captured it.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yes, companies can copyright specific pigments

No, you cannot copyright a pigment. Companies can use colors as trademarks, but that just means that competitors can't use the color in a way that would confuse customers. For example, you can't start a courier service with vans that are the same color as UPS vans, because that might confuse customers.

You are still free to use that color in ways that are unrelated to UPS, for instance as an eye shadow.

Patents are another matter entirely. You don't patent the color, but you might be able to patent the media (e.g. a new formula for quick drying paint).

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

In the same way, the company that created the LLM may protect their work

What does the company protect here? The system, or the model? Which the latter being ill-gotten by scraping already copyrighted content?

Who drew the art is of no import when the artist isn't a sentient lifeform

It was an allegory. The supposed artist is the commissioner and the LLM being the artist. And since you can't copyright something you didn't made, well tough luck getting copyright on AI slop.

By your definition, a photographer cannot own a picture because the camera captured it.

No, because as a photographer you hold the tool in your hand. You can adjust everything, even the subject. And its all in your own control and it takes your skill in managing it to shoot the perfect photo.

If we would take your interpretation of my definition, then nobody can own anything since they always have to use a tool to create something.

[–] SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It’s a good analogy but one thing to consider is that the artist is the copyright holder.

The company that directed it only has the copyright either by explicit contract transferring rights or because it’s a work for hire where the employee’s copyright work is “automatically” transferred to their employer.

Some interesting case law on that from Disney artists, comic book authors, etc

https://copyright.gov/circs/circ30.pdf

[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What does the company protect here? The system, or the model? Which the latter being ill-gotten by scraping already copyrighted content?

That depends on what is proprietary to the company. If they have created the system and the model, then both.

The supposed artist is the commissioner and the LLM being the artist.

That is a highly subjective point of view. Let's look at music. If a musician loses their arms and can no longer play an instrument, but instead dictates the chords to someone else to play, who is the artist? Who can claim ownership of the piece?

No, because as a photographer you hold the tool in your hand. You can adjust everything, even the subject. And its all in your own control and it takes your skill in managing it to shoot the perfect photo.

Spoken like someone who has never used an LLM before and thinks it magically produces exactly what you want on the first time, every time.

If we would take your interpretation of my definition, then nobody can own anything since they always have to use a tool to create something.

No, that's everyone else's argument. Mine is that the tool is the LLM, and that when art is created with it, it should be open to copyright.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Let's look at music. If a musician loses their arms and can no longer play an instrument, but instead dictates the chords to someone else to play, who is the artist? Who can claim ownership of the piece?

Then that musician becomes the composer who can copyright the sheet music. The one who plays the chords becomes the performing artist and can copyright the performance.

Spoken like someone who has never used an LLM before and thinks it magically produces exactly what you want on the first time, every time.

I have used LLMs extensively, several versions and types. I know how that shit works. And no I do not think that its results are deterministic and accurate.

Mine is that the tool is the LLM, and that when art is created with it, it should be open to copyright.

The LLM is the "artist" as it produces the image. And you can't claim copyright for someone else.

[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Then that musician becomes the composer who can copyright the sheet music. The one who plays the chords becomes the performing artist and can copyright the performance.

That is if they actually composed the music. In the case of someone saying I want a song that is ABAG, and they ask that it be written down because they cannot write it down themselves, the person who writes down ABAG isn't the composer, they are an extension of the pen that writes the note--they have become a tool.

The LLM is the “artist” as it produces the image. And you can’t claim copyright for someone else.

The LLM gives you what you ask for based on a random seed and keywords in your prompt. It has no will of it's own. It cannot exert its will over the image. It simply outputs. As I've said in another part of this thread, if I tie a bucket of paint with hole to a rope and sling the bucket of paint over a canvas, does the bucket of paint get credit for being the artist? Does the rope? No. They had no will. Even though my input was minimal, and the results most assuredly random, I am still the artist by all accounts, and as such may copyright my random sprays of paint should I deem them worthy. My intent has created the art--my desire. The machine cannot create because it cannot exert its will. It simply does what it is asked and outputs.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

In the case of someone saying I want a song that is ABAG, and they ask that it be written down because they cannot write it down themselves

Then we are again in a commissioner situation. The guy who commissioned a composer to write them a song according to their specifications.

In regards to your bucket of paint.

That's an art installation which you can copyright. The resulting artwork on the canvas can't be.

[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That’s an art installation which you can copyright. The resulting artwork on the canvas can’t be.

Do you have anything to back that up?

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Damien Hirst and Jackson Pollock would like to have a word with you.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I would not be qualified to talk to Hirst or a dead painter. They would have to take it with the Copyright law.

[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well, it's been great chatting. Have a good one.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah have a good one as well.