cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/4658537
Why This Award-Winning Piece of AI Art Can’t Be Copyrighted::Matthew Allen’s AI art won first prize at the Colorado State Fair. But the US government has ruled it can’t be copyrighted because it’s too much “machine” and not enough “human.”
Personally, I think it’s reasonable to deny copyright for AI generated work, largely due to the fact that it protects professional artists. I think if corporations were able to copyright AI art, the artistic community would enter a rapid and potentially irreversible decline.
That being said, I do acknowledge that logically, there is not much difference between a digital artist and an AI artist. Neither of them could produce anything of value without their software of choice.
That being said, I do acknowledge that logically, there is not much difference between a digital artist and an AI artist. Neither of them could produce anything of value without their software of choice.
Uh, no. The vast majority of skills utilized by digital artists apply across any software and with analog tools as well just as we’ve used them for hundreds of years. They are quite capable of producing similar works without digital tools at all. You cannot say the same for someone refining a prompt for a piece of software that scrapes everything from other people’s creativity.
The closest analog would be an art director for a collage project. That is what an AI artist does.
They are quite capable of producing similar works without digital tools at all.
I think this is probably true for some digital artists, but certainly not all.
The closest analog would be an art director for a college project. That is what an AI artist does.
That’s a fair point, but I would counter that being an art director is not a job that most people could do. It may require less technical skill (like AI art), but it still requires a significant body of knowledge and highly developed artistic sensibilities.
I get your point that it’s demeaning to compare the training and skills of a digital artist to an AI artist, but I wish it didn’t come with the implication that any idiot could create good AI art.
Also I was going to correct your spelling of analogue, but it turns out the slang version has become official, at least for American English. I would still recommend using analog when you’re talking about electronics, and analogue when you’re talking about something that is analogous, because I think it makes you sound more smarter 😅
because I think it makes you sound more smarter 😅
Brilliant. I don’t give a damn what you’d recommend, you’re a pedant who’s clearly out of their depth.
What are analog tools? Strictly speaking, these are tools that don’t use electricity. They don’t require user manuals, and are easy to use.
Like pencils and brushes you dolt.
Any idiot can create AI art. That’s the whole point. I have yet to see anything good or interesting come out of it because you’re right, not every idiot can be an art director. AI just let’s them think they’re doing any of the work and “good” is subjective.
Speaking as an art director, and a digital artist who actually knows what they’re talking about: it is true for all working artists. Your concept only holds true for kids dabbling in technology with no background in art. They might make digital art, but they are not digital artists.
I think it’s obvious that AI created art isn’t copyrightable based on current law - but the AI prompts are! I think it’s interesting to think about what should be done about the situation and how we should analogize it. Is AI like a paintbrush? Is it like a slave? Is it like an elaborate machine? Most artistic output is copywritable regardless of the machinery used to create it, but a slaves art is not copywritable by its master. But a computer program creating art - if it’s not AI, is THAT art copywritable?
It’s a fun thought exercise.
