I’ve generally been against giving AI works copyright, but this article presented what I felt were compelling arguments for why I might be wrong. What do you think?

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
2 points

There’s gaussian noise involved in many of photoshop’s brushes I’m pretty sure.

Does that make photoshop not a pure function of the user’s input, and hence incapable of producing anything copyrightable?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

You need direct control over some elements of a work to claim copyright. Not necessarily all of them.

So even if the microtexture is out of your control, you still have complete control of the framing, color, etc. That’s sufficient to claim copyright.

If you lose control of every element by replacing them all with prompts and/or chance, then you lose the copyright. Which is what happened in the “monkey selfie” photo.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@beehaw.org

Create post

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Community stats

  • 2.7K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.5K

    Posts

  • 82K

    Comments