US Copyright Office Says AI Generated Images Cannot be Copyrighted.

[Adeptus Astartes]

The US Copyright Office says you can’t copyright Midjourney AI-generated images

The images in this comic book are “not of human authorship”

www.theverge.com

The US Copyright Office says you can’t copyright Midjourney AI-generated images​

A copyright registration granted to the Zarya of the Dawn comic book has been partially canceled, because it included “non-human authorship” that hadn’t been taken into account.​

By RICHARD LAWLER / @rjcc
Feb 22, 2023, 6:06 PM PST27 Comments / 27 New

​

A reproduction of the cover page and the second page of Zarya of the Dawn, from the US Copyright Office’s letter. Image: Zarya of the Dawn — Kris Kashtanova / Midjourney
The US Copyright Office has reconsidered the copyright protection it granted last fall to Kristina Kashtanova for her comic book Zarya of the Dawn, reports Reuters. It featured pictures created by feeding text prompts to Midjourney, an artificial intelligence image generator.
According to this letter (PDF) sent to her lawyer by Robert Kasunic, the associate Register of Copyrights, the US Copyright Office has decided that Kashtanova “is the author of the Work’s text as well as the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the Work’s written and visual elements.”

A commenter said it well, that claiming ownership of AI art is like claiming ownership of a commissioned painting; you may have given instructions, but you did not create the final product.

 

[NZA]

The US Copyright Office says you can’t copyright Midjourney AI-generated images

The images in this comic book are “not of human authorship”

www.theverge.com

A commenter said it well, that claiming ownership of AI art is like claiming ownership of a commissioned painting; you may have given instructions, but you did not create the final product.

that saying doesnt really apply to copyright at all. corporations claim ownership of the work of production artists all the time. similarly, investors can claim ownership of famous works of art created by dead artists that they then monetize with legal exclusivity. it seems that according to the law, ownership can transfer from human to human, but never from AI to human.

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

that saying doesnt really apply to copyright at all. corporations claim ownership of the work of production artists all the time. similarly, investors can claim ownership of famous works of art created by dead artists that they then monetize with legal exclusivity. it seems that according to the law, ownership can transfer from human to human, but never from AI to human.

In your cases, there was a contractual agreement as to who the owner of the work was. A commissioned piece can also have its ownership transferred, but there has to be an agreement.

It also is a better argument than the pro AI camp's camera argument.

 

[NZA]

In your cases, there was a contractual agreement as to who the owner of the work was. A commissioned piece can also have its ownership transferred, but there has to be an agreement.

It also is a better argument than the pro AI camp's camera argument.

true, although in this case, AI is synonymous with work for hire

 

[DEAD7]

I expect this to change.

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

I expect this to change.

How? This AI in particular pulls from existing copyrighted works and generative AI isn't human, so copyright doesn't apply to it.

true, although in this case, AI is synonymous with work for hire

Midjourney isn't under contract, isn't human, and isn't being compensated for its output.

 

[NZA]

Midjourney under contract, isn't human, and isn't being compensated for its output.

then in that case, i dont see how the commission logic of the commenter applies to AI at all. if not being human and not being compensated means it cant be work for hire, then it also cant be a commission

 

[Json]

then in that case, i dont see how the commission logic of the commenter applies to AI at all. if not being human and not being compensated means it cant be work for hire, then it also cant be a commission

I think they are using the term commission as its definition. A Patron commissions a painting from an artist with instructions( ie a mural on my ceiling of the birth of Christ). The artist is under contract to fulfill that direction. AI is commissioned to create a book but the AI can’t say no or alter the art on its own. It’s basically a sentient pencil. So if you steal the style of say Banksy or Studio Ghibili it can’t say no or more away from those prompts on its own.

You can probably copyright the story idea, character names, places but can’t own the property outright to sell it.

Work for hire is an understanding that whatever you create is the property of who you are working for. You can make a horror, sci-fi, or western. You have free reign but it belongs to the payee. The AI won’t make stuff on its own, it’s only following your prompts.

 

[NZA]

I think they are using the term commission as its definition. A Patron commissions a painting from an artist with instructions( ie a mural on my ceiling of the birth of Christ). The artist is under contract to fulfill that direction. AI is commissioned to create a book but the AI can’t say no or alter the art on its own. It’s basically a sentient pencil. So if you steal the style of say Banksy or Studio Ghibili it can’t say no or more away from those prompts on its own.

You can probably copyright the story idea, character names, places but can’t own the property outright to sell it.

Work for hire is an understanding that whatever you create is the property of who you are working for. You can make a horror, sci-fi, or western. You have free reign but it belongs to the payee. The AI won’t make stuff on its own, it’s only following your prompts.

legally or coloquially, commission implies an artist and not a tool. wavering between treating it like an artist and treating it like a tool at random is faulty logic.

the court upheld the copyright for the story of this comic book in the article, but not the art. comic books are treated legally like collective works which are work for hire in the law. either AI worked for hire on this comic book or it was a tool.

 

[Arcavian]

Im going on a stealing spree

 

[Json]

legally or coloquially, commission implies an artist and not a tool. wavering between treating it like an artist and treating it like a tool at random is faulty logic.

the court upheld the copyright for the story of this comic book in the article, but not the art. comic books are treated legally like collective works which are work for hire in the law. either AI worked for hire on this comic book or it was a tool.

No commission implies scope of assignment. You commission a painting, a mural, a sign. You don’t commission art in general or a general book. The AI isn’t doing a book, it’s doing whatever you tell it to. That’s not a commission. Ai has no choice in color, composition, detail.


Work for hire implies you are assigned varying jobs as assigned. One week you might be drawing Superman, the next it’s inking Hulk. You don’t own anything you make unless stipulated

Comics are collective because several people have input independent and a part of a whole. The Ai had no say on the art. It didn’t make a decision on anything.

 

[Wargames]

The next question is if I have the image edited is it then not mine?

 

[Json]

The next question is if I have the image edited is it then not mine?

You mean like the pop art movement or Dadaism?

Apart of why AI is easily falling into the trap of copyright is the people making it just want to recreate stuff they like. There’s no reasoning behind it.

 

[Chronic]

AI is very useful when you have good story ideas but don't have the skill to write or draw, or no money to hire artists to create it.

 

[NZA]

No commission implies scope of assignment. You commission a painting, a mural, a sign. You don’t commission art in general or a general book. The AI isn’t doing a book, it’s doing whatever you tell it to. That’s not a commission. Ai has no choice in color, composition, detail.


Work for hire implies you are assigned varying jobs as assigned. One week you might be drawing Superman, the next it’s inking Hulk. You don’t own anything you make unless stipulated

Comics are collective because several people have input independent and a part of a whole. The Ai had no say on the art. It didn’t make a decision on anything.

commission implies an agreement between multiple parties to do something. in the case of commissioned art, the other party in this agreement is an artist. that is what is implied. the scope is not deducible from this - you would need more context for that. by referring to AI art as having been commissioned, one is implying that AI is to be treated as a counter party to an agreement. so, as i said, going back and forth between treating it like a counterparty in an agreement and like a mere tool doesnt make any sense. gotta pick one...

Help: Collective Works | U.S. Copyright Office

SE Group Serial Registration Instructions for New Users with print issues only

copyright.gov

work for hire is a legal term which modifies commission and copyright law and it encompasses many things, typically commodified art. they give you a list of works that show you what is typically considered collective when a copyright holder commissions others to do work on them.

What is a work made for hire?

What are we talking about when we talk about a work made for hire, also known as a work for hire? Basically, we are talking about work mad...

www.comicslawyer.com

"At this time, it is not clear that non-employee contributions to comic books fall under the work made for hire doctrine. If they do, it would be under the collective work provision, and this is the approach typically taken by the major publishers like DC and Marvel. "

i am not interested in comics being collective because multiple people can contribute, i am interested in the collective work angle because the government uses that terminology to help it determine ownership. this is law.

basically, the stuff you are talking about doesnt really relate to what im talking about.