I agree that AI-generated images should not be copyright-protected unless it can be proven that a significant part of the result was the result of human interaction.
Not sure that would hold up under current law as the "company" who owns the AI software can copy-right the work.
While the software company owns the rights to the product, can they copyright what the software makes?
I think they can...especially if the AI was also developed by employees of the company. Might already be some potential basis for that in the gaming software world
It'll be interesting to see that tested.
The AI image generator creates the output image. Since it's not human, it cannot legally hold copyright.
Still not sure as the AI, so far, can't create an image without human input. So the human, by pushing the "go" button, created the image. The AI, so far, is just a very very sophisticated palette and paint brushes that can't do anything until the human "picks" it up and "applies" it to a "canvas". The human/company that clicked "go" can hold the copyright, IMO. Down the road that will likely change
Based on the copyright board ruling, it appears their view is that the human pushes the go button to trigger the image-crestion process but that the AI creates the image.
I will respectfully disagree on this last point and continue to be in the watch for legal rulings that define what level of human contribution/intervention merits being assigned the lion's share of the credit for the creation of an original work.
You just said yourself, it's a PAINTING! What's THAT got to do with ANYTHING here?!?How about the recently unveiled Barack Obama paintingNo it has the sort of hyper realism you see in a photograph and the sort of cod surrealism that accompanies much digital imagery.I do not think it even imitates photography. It imitates a painting. OP's title is misleading.Except it's not a photograph. It's a digital image that imitates photography.I see nothing wrong with this photo, so what if it is manipulated using AI, it still takes a lot of skill to produce a photo as good as that. Amazing stuff.This AI generated photo won first price in the digital category at the Colorado State Fair.
It looks very much like a copy cat pictures created by someone who appreciated composition and lighting after a visit from a art gallery.
Personally, I would question the existence and placement of the brighter red object on the far right.
.
It is an amazing image and a great piece of AI generated art BUT there is no way it can be called a photograph if it was not taken with a camera. I have no objection to some AI in photo editing but when it gets to a stage where every part of an image is manipulated, then in my opinion it is no longer a photographThis AI generated photo won first price in the digital category at the Colorado State Fair.
It looks very much like a copy cat pictures created by someone who appreciated composition and lighting after a visit from a art gallery.
Personally, I would question the existence and placement of the brighter red object on the far right.
Yes...I know. But when corporations, gov't, and courts get involved and test copyright..I think copyright will still get issued...as it's about the money. The Copyright Claims Board (CCB) may have little say after the 30K limit gets breached. Looking at the resent court rulings in the US...I think we will soon see changes. The Court recently left open the door with the "but other generative art may still qualify" wording, IMO.
I get your point. And I think it can be argued that this is not a photograph.It is an amazing image and a great piece of AI generated art BUT there is no way it can be called a photograph if it was not taken with a camera. I have no objection to some AI in photo editing but when it gets to a stage where every part of an image is manipulated, then in my opinion it is no longer a photographThis AI generated photo won first price in the digital category at the Colorado State Fair.
It looks very much like a copy cat pictures created by someone who appreciated composition and lighting after a visit from a art gallery.
Personally, I would question the existence and placement of the brighter red object on the far right.
While they own the rights to the software I doubt they own the rights to the results the software produces. It would be like a paint company owning the rights to a painting produced by the artist who created the work because they used their brand of paint. What we have is something new without precedent so it will have to be sorted out in the courts. The results will be decided by a jury. If I was on the jury I would rule against the owner/creator of the software.
I'm thinking more of the case were the company who builds the AI also generates the content (Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, etc.). In a case were the company who builds the AI software "sells" it to another company...it would be spelled out in the licensing agreements and such. So I think we will see AI generated content copyrighted more often than not soon
In that case the company that produces the software would also be the creator of the image so yes, I agree.
