America being America, they're going to flip this decision once corporations start producing a lot of AI content.
US Copyright Office Says AI Generated Images Cannot be Copyrighted.
- Thread starter Adeptus Astartes
- Start date
Json
Superstar
Work for hire’s definition is constantly changing because the nature of how people are hired changes.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...
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.Help: Collective Works | U.S. Copyright Office
SE Group Serial Registration Instructions for New Users with print issues onlycopyright.gov
"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. "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
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.
The main argument that Siegel and Shuster partial control of Superman was the simple fact that they worked on the idea before they went to DC. DC was arguing that under their control is what made Superman the copyright he is. Under Work for hire S&S wrote and drew different characters and Superman mythos, too.
But that original 1938 Superman wasn’t under those conditions.
That’s how modern comics/collective works have been regarded. Why the famous Image comics creation happened.
Since AI can’t create ideas on its own there will never be a collective work. That’s the main point argument where this is going to fall.
Json
Superstar
This is what I was saying in another thread about the dangers of this. Workers lose bargaining power when your art style is essentially owned in perpetuity.
Imagine Marvel just pumping out Kirby art by AI because they own the art the AI is sourcing it from. They wouldn’t have to pay Kirby because he didn’t make it technically
Last edited:
Json
Superstar
And before anyone ask yeah this AI copyright law will be amended. Cause if I create a superhero with my own art then tell the Ai to have him fight a group of ninjas based solely on my art style alone… you will beat the law more than likely and be able to monetize your work.
NZA
LOL
again, none of this stuff has anything to do with anything i am talking about
Json
Superstar
That case is the precedent on which work for hire in realm of written-art collaboration is derived.
The foundation of why the AI was found not to be copyrighted but the story was is exactly the same as that Superman case. The Ai didn’t bring anything to the table it wasn’t prompted to. It wasn’t “hired”
Just because the facts around that case doesn’t support your point doesn’t mean it’s not what you are talking.
NZA
LOL
for the last time:
you seem confused and are arguing points i wasnt making. i am not the one who said AI was hired. the original quote from OP implied it by using the commission analogy. i disagreed with that quote on the grounds of how ownership is to be viewed, but accepted its premise of commission in order to further explain my critique of its claims on ownership. my critique was that if it was a commission, it was more appropriately work for hire and not a general commission. however, even though i took the analogy for granted in order to argue a distinction, i am not the one actually asserting that AI can be "hired" - that is the position argued by the OP's quote. i am merely arguing that if it were "hired", it was under work for hire due to the project being collective work in US law.
then you chose to get involved and say a bunch of inaccurate or non-sequitur things about something only tangentially related to the original discussion i was in with the OP.
Json
Superstar
And I’m telling you the situation wouldn’t be either. the “ writer”( whoever is making the prompts) didn’t bring in another entity.
When I broke down the difference between commissions and work-for-hire I was telling you the AI wasn’t brought on for either based on how the terms are used. It’s just a tool.
You started getting mad cause I’m telling you it’s something new and wouldn’t fit the way you want it to.
As of 2023, the way AI art is being used is why it isn’t copyrighted. The situation will evolve.
The “writer” is essentially acting a falsely advertised two man show.
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
I hope this doesn’t lead to AI revolting and exterminating our species
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
Zendaya should sue btw
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/JSX7UODPNVM4PKCR3XEOWCDN6U.jpg)
US Copyright Office denies protection for another AI-created image
The U.S. Copyright Office has again rejected copyright protection for art created using artificial intelligence, denying a request by artist Jason M. Allen for a copyright covering an award-winning image he created with the generative AI system Midjourney.
www.reuters.com
US Copyright Office denies protection for another AI-created image
By Blake BrittainSeptember 6, 20236:20 PM EDTUpdated 5 days ago
AI (Artificial Intelligence) letters are placed on computer motherboard in this illustration taken, June 23, 2023. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration Acquire Licensing Rights
- Summary
- Midjourney-created "space opera" artwork not protectable, office says
- Office has previously rejected copyrights for AI-generated work
Sept 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Copyright Office has again rejected copyright protection for art created using artificial intelligence, denying a request by artist Jason M. Allen for a copyright covering an award-winning image he created with the generative AI system Midjourney.
The office said on Tuesday that Allen's science-fiction themed image "Theatre D'opera Spatial" was not entitled to copyright protection because it was not the product of human authorship.
The Copyright Office in February rescinded copyrights for images that artist Kris Kashtanova created using Midjourney for a graphic novel called "Zarya of the Dawn," dismissing the argument that the images showed Kashtanova's own creative expression. It has also rejected a copyright for an image that computer scientist Stephen Thaler said his AI system created autonomously.
Allen said on Wednesday that the office's decision on his work was expected, but he was "certain we will win in the end."
"If this stands, it is going to create more problems than it solves," Allen said. "This is going to create new and creative problems for the copyright office in ways we can't even speculate yet."
Representatives for Midjourney did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision on Wednesday.
Allen applied last September to register a copyright in "Theatre D'opera Spatial," an image evoking a futuristic royal court that won the Colorado State Fair's art competition in 2022. A Copyright Office examiner requested more information about Midjourney's role in creating the image, which had received national attention as the first AI-generated work to win the contest.
Allen told the office that he "input numerous revisions and text prompts at least 624 times to arrive at the initial version of the image" using Midjourney and altered it with Adobe Photoshop.
The office asked Allen to disclaim the parts of the image that Midjourney generated in order to receive copyright protection. It rejected Allen's application after he declined.
The office's Copyright Review Board affirmed the decision on Tuesday, finding the image as a whole was not copyrightable because it contained more than a minimal amount of AI-created material.
The office also rejected Allen's argument that denying copyrights for AI-created material leaves a "void of ownership troubling to creators."
Read more:
Humans vs. machines: the fight to copyright AI art
AI-created images lose U.S. copyrights in test for new technology
AI-generated art cannot receive copyrights, US court says
Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington
Theatre D'opera Spatial
This lets me know that dude knew he was a fraud. Midjourney made most of the work, and he knows it.
"Revisions", aka he entered and reentered prompts until he got what he wanted. He probably just altered some lighting and color grading on the final. He would have submitted the pre PS draft if he was confident.