Well, so much for my plan to make a fortune out of these things

Post #442,965 by rcareaga 4/27/23 10:17:17 AM 4/27/23 10:17:17 AM Reply	Well, so much for my plan to make a fortune out of these things The US Copyright Office to “creators” of AI-generated content: go pound sand: Who owns the copyright to images generated using artificial intelligence? In a recent decision, the U.S. Copyright Office came to a surprising conclusion: No one does. The work in question involved Kristina Kashtanova’s graphic novel “Zarya of the Dawn”. Kashtanova created the images for the book using Midjourney, an AI text-to-image generator. But the Copyright Office, in partly denying her registration of copyright, ruled that Kashtanova’s images did not satisfy the requirement of “human authorship” and were ineligible for protection — because they were supposedly created without sufficient human control. The office then doubled down, issuing new guidance imposing on all registrants a duty to disclose any AI-generated material in their works and to exclude the AI-generated content from copyright. Interestingly, the sentiments of the Teeming Millions, at least in the first few screens of reader comments I scrolled through, appear to lean toward the Copyright Office’s position. Having myself spent many, many hours (and not a few shekels) using Midjourney, I don’t know about that “created without sufficient human control” part. There really is an art to crafting an effective text prompt—drook might have something to say about this—and I had to refine some of mine in considerable detail, and over several iteration, though I was best pleased when MJ got it right without “stage management.” Even then, though, I usually needed several iterations before I was satisfied with the output. Anyway, this thing has only been a hobby for me, and I never contemplated getting rich or even recovering my outlays on these bagatelles, but I think the ruling hard cheese for Kashtanova and people like her. cordially,
Post #442,967 by drook 4/27/23 11:10:35 AM 4/27/23 11:10:35 AM Reply	Of course I have an opinion Yes, crafting the prompt is both skill and art. But more importantly, knowing what's "wrong" with the first draft and how to fix it is the real skill. I could set up a tripod aimed at a landscape and have it take a photo every second for a week, then go through the >600k images and select the "best" one. No one would deny my copyright. Or would they? I wasn't there when the shutter was triggered. But how is this different from sitting behind the camera and waiting for that second and pressing the shutter release? If I select this collection of elements and put them in this arrangement with this lighting and take a photo of it, that's a still life worthy of copyright. But painters, when the camera was invented, argued that you didn't do any work to create that image. Here's a more practical view: Bob spends a day feeding prompts to Midjourney and publishes the output. Joe - a professional art director with decades of experience - spends a month crating and refining prompts and publishes the output. Does anyone doubt that Joe's collection will be better than Bob's? If so, is that because Midjourney got better when Joe used it? Or is it because Midjourney is a tool - just like a camera is a tool - and the difference in output is the skill of the person using it? If your work can be replaced by Midjourney, your work isn't worth much to begin with. Now, the counter-argument: This hollows out the market for beginners. How will anyone ever get to be an expert if you can't get paid while developing your skill? I've got no answer for this one. -- Drew
Post #442,979 by crazy 4/27/23 1:31:23 PM 4/27/23 1:31:23 PM Reply	I wonder how this applies to code generators? If you're in a gui point and click environment that generates a whole bunch of code and occasionally you have to go in and tweak the code, is that code really considered yours? Has this been litigated?
Post #442,983 by drook 4/27/23 2:07:51 PM 4/27/23 2:07:51 PM Reply	Or compilers You didn't write that machine code, the compiler did. You just told the compiler what you wanted. I guess I can copy that now. -- Drew
Post #442,998 by CRConrad 4/28/23 2:27:57 AM 4/28/23 2:27:57 AM Reply	In my line of argumentation, that's cut and dry: If it's deterministic, i.e. the same points-and-clicks always make it generate the same code, then it's your points-and-clicks that completely define the compiled output. So of course the copyright on that output is also yours. Another angle to look at it from: Not all IDEs work the same way. Some, when you "paint" a UI window for your app, generate a bunch of executable code to create a window, to create a main menu, to create each menu item... And on and on. (Java IDEs, AFAIK?) Others have that code compiled into their class library's "AppWindow" and "MainMenu" objects, and the IDE only saves the properties you specify for your UI nested into each other, generate a single "Application.Start" line of executable code, and then at run-time the "Application" (singleton) object reads its (compiled-in resource) properties, finds an "AppWindow" object so calls "AppWindow.Create" and passes it its sub-properties; the window object's "Create" function reads its properties, finds a "MainMenu" spec, creates a "MainMenu" object and and passes it its sub-properties, the individual "MenuItem"s and their specs... And so on. Not much code was actually generated and saved for you by the IDE, only the compact specs of your UI -- the "actual brushstrokes" of the window(s) you painted, if you will. All the actual code didn't need to be generated as source text, because it was already compiled into your class library. Would that make the code you wrote, using that library, any less copyrightable? No, of course not. Why would it; isn't that exactly what class libraries are for? So, to get back to the first case: Then why would it be any less copyrightable just because it comes in the form of source code generated at (your) build time? In either case, your "brushstrokes" in the IDE determine the output just as exactly; what gets built is exactly what you "painted". NB: The above is all about traditional what-you-do-is-what-you-get IDEs. Once you build CodeGPT into an IDE the code you get isn't the code you wrote anymore, so no, then the copyright to that code can't be entirely yours any more either. Still pretty cut-and-dry, AFAICS. -- Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
Post #442,972 by boxley 4/27/23 11:59:12 AM 4/27/23 11:59:12 AM Reply	workaround include that AI in a corporation and have the corporation copyright the material "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #442,973 by CRConrad 4/27/23 12:06:14 PM 4/27/23 12:06:14 PM Reply	I'm with the CO and its teeming myriads. Having myself spent many, many hours (and not a few shekels) using Midjourney, I don’t know about that “created without sufficient human control” part. There really is an art to crafting an effective text prompt—drook might have something to say about this—and I had to refine some of mine in considerable detail, and over several iteration, though I was best pleased when MJ got it right without “stage management.” Even then, though, I usually needed several iterations before I was satisfied with the output. But there's more than your prompt that makes that output, isn't there? Feed the same prompt into your electronic Turk at a later time -- or many times -- and you get a different result, or many different results, right? So your prose didn't actually by itself define the end result, it's only one of several inputs; the others being (at least) an element of randomness and a distillation of the materials the contraption was trained on, in some combination. So what you have the undisputed copyright to is, IMnshO... Just your prompt. That of the finished work you get to share with either the machine, or its programmers, or all the creators of its training materials. Yup, I do realise that would mean all those oh-so-artiiiste "painters" whose method is to throw a few pails-worth of paints into the air and sell the splotched canvas they land on shouldn't have any sole and undisputed copyright either; they could at the most get it shared with the prevailing wind. And... Yeah, I can stand by that. (Hm, what's verkshöjd in English...? Aha: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality . Yeah, suck on that, Jackson.) -- Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
Post #442,980 by malraux 4/27/23 1:32:03 PM 4/27/23 1:32:03 PM Reply	Quibble Most of the generative image tools include the ability to specify the random seed, so the image can be recreated. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #443,038 by CRConrad 5/2/23 9:40:18 AM 5/2/23 9:40:18 AM Reply	So should the copyright to the result belong to... ...that seed, or should your copyright be to that seed itself in stead of the final output? Being that the random seed is a number — a rather long integer, I guess? — and numbers aren't per se able to either be copyrighted or own a copyright... Idunno, but I kinda can't see how that makes the argument for "AI" output being copyrightable all that much stronger. -- Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
Post #443,041 by malraux 5/2/23 11:59:25 AM 5/2/23 11:59:25 AM Reply	Hence "quibble" instead of "substantive argument" ;-) Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #443,043 by CRConrad 5/2/23 12:55:29 PM 5/2/23 12:55:29 PM Reply	👍🏻
Post #442,982 by drook 4/27/23 2:06:36 PM 4/27/23 2:06:36 PM Reply	What about landscape photos? The photographer didn't build the mountain. They didn't carve the river. They didn't arrange the clouds. They didn't produce the sun. All they did was stand there and press the button. Anyone can stand. Anyone can press a button. I guess I can start selling Ansel Adams prints. -- Drew
Post #442,986 by boxley 4/27/23 2:19:22 PM 4/27/23 2:19:22 PM Reply	rofl sounds like a familiar argument "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #442,988 by drook 4/27/23 2:42:32 PM 4/27/23 2:42:32 PM Reply	It sounds silly now, but painters used to say exactly that -- Drew
Post #443,008 by boxley 4/29/23 10:35:01 PM 4/29/23 10:35:02 PM Reply	you wern't saying that a number of years ago "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #443,019 by drook 5/1/23 10:21:56 AM 5/1/23 10:21:56 AM Reply	Which "that" was I not saying? -- Drew
Post #443,027 by boxley 5/1/23 3:34:33 PM 5/1/23 3:34:33 PM Reply	Re: Which "that" was I not saying? The business owner didn't build the roads. They didn't install the electricity. etc,etc "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #443,028 by drook 5/1/23 4:07:08 PM 5/1/23 4:07:08 PM Reply	First difference I can think of is IP vs physical If I sample a beat into a new song, the original still exists. If I run my fleet of trucks over the public highways, I'm causing actual damage to that road that will need to be maintained. I'm sure there's more differences, but that's enough to make the comparison moot. -- Drew
Post #442,989 by rcareaga 4/27/23 5:47:09 PM 4/27/23 5:49:20 PM Reply	Jackson sucking on that Several years back—I’m too lazy to look it up—there were some paintings discovered in an attic that looked like Jackson Pollack’s work, and there was a lot of circumstantial evidence (location, age, chemical signatures of pigments and canvas) to make that supposition plausible. I have a vague impression that after further analysis it was concluded that circa 1950 some painter, having taken note of all the ink that had been spilled on JP’s paint, thought, “hell, I can do that!” and spattered accordingly. The identity of the unknown artist was not established, but no imputation of attempted fraud was made. It amuses me, though, to think (and I do not propose to weigh in here on the merits of Pollack’s corpus) that had the paintings been “authenticated” they would have been worth millions—as imitations, not so much, and this does seem to suggest that celebrity trumps artistry in this instance. cordially, Edited by rcareaga April 27, 2023, 05:49:20 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #442,999 by CRConrad 4/28/23 2:32:13 AM 4/28/23 2:32:14 AM Reply	"This"? Doesn't celebrity trump artistry in pretty much all instances? (I'd add a winking smiley, if only it weren't so depressingly true.) -- Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
Post #443,001 by drook 4/28/23 12:37:38 PM 4/28/23 12:37:38 PM Reply	Hmm, now that you've prompted me to think more about it ... Celebrity trumps artistry in the world of "fine art". But in popular art - thinking movies in particular here - people may go see a movie because Scorsese directed it, but will still happily give a bad review if they didn't like it. I guess this is the difference between enjoying art for what it does for you, vs. wanting art for what it says about you for having it. -- Drew
Post #443,009 by CRConrad 4/30/23 5:31:42 AM 4/30/23 5:31:42 AM Reply	Depends on how you count coup on the trump. They went and paid to watch it, who cares about their reviews (especially since they aren't celebrities). In the wallets of all concerned parties -- which is where humanity counts its score-keeping, innit? -- celebrity trumped artistry. (What, me cynical?) -- Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
Post #442,992 by rcareaga 4/27/23 8:05:13 PM 4/27/23 8:05:13 PM Reply	For the defense I solicited Midjourney to yield up a poster for the film/TV series Tinker, Sailor, Soldier, Spy as though René Magritte had been commissioned to produce one. Here’s what I got. Magritte never painted that, but an AI, riffing on his style, generated something like he might have done given such a charge (and I’ll bet you a beet that as of today I am the only human being who has ever solicited a like output). I cleaned up the image somewhat, and added the typography. Is it “mine?” Are Max Ernst’s collages “his?” I wonder what the Copyright Office might rule today in the latter case. Anyway, my own retirement livelihood does not depend on sales of Cinema Paronomasia or That’s Entertainment!, so I can take a lazily disinterested view of these matters. I do, though, think that the law will have some catching up to do in the coming years. cordially,
Post #442,994 by drook 4/28/23 12:17:38 AM 4/28/23 12:17:38 AM Reply	The thing about "in the style of ..." Movies and music that are blatant ripoffs sell very well. "Fine art" not so much. Unless you get something authenticated, because as you said, who "really" produced it is infinitely more important than the work itself. -- Drew
Post #443,006 by crazy 4/28/23 5:42:33 PM 4/28/23 5:42:33 PM Reply	I have a Greg cherry hologram It's kind of like this but better. https://youtu.be/a6qGaQ-_0F8 Mine is a pair of binoculars sitting on a tree looking into a rainforest. In the distance in the lenses are a snake and a parrot. It has to be placed in the perfect shadow box with a single point of light above it at the perfect angle in order to be seen. It is one of a kind. It has infinite value to me. It has some market value that somebody might pay for it. His method of creating these things is lost at the moment. It is probably the only thing I've kept through the last 20 moves. When I first bought it I had to put it on layaway because it costs way too much. But it took a couple of months of multiple payments before he was ready to hand it over to me. The next week the shop was closed and if I had taken another week to pay I would not have been able to get it. There's history associated with it. There's history associated with the creator and the stages that his art and production capabilities went through. Would a perfect modern copy be worth just as much to me? Not a chance.
Post #443,018 by drook 5/1/23 10:19:58 AM 5/1/23 10:19:58 AM Reply	But if someone could reproduce it ... The price would be based on what new users would pay, not on how much you value yours. -- Drew
Post #443,013 by Another Scott 4/30/23 10:28:56 AM 4/30/23 10:28:56 AM Reply	I think you're Ok, if this story is correct. Engadget (from March 16): Any images that are produced by giving a text prompt to current generative AI models, such as Midjourney or Stable Diffusion, cannot be copyrighted in the US. That's according to the US Copyright Office (USCO), which has equated such prompts to a buyer giving directions to a commissioned artist. "They identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented in its output," the USCO wrote in new guidance [pdf] it published to the Federal Register. "When an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the 'traditional elements of authorship' are determined and executed by the technology — not the human user," the office stated. [...] "Solely" is probably the essential word here. And it strikes me as a sensible ruling - we don't want some server farm generating exabytes of images just to serve as fodder for copyright lawsuits. "Your picture of a sunset is clearly a copy of our copyrighted image X3g2wCBBa271-$$.jpg Pay us for a license or we'll sue you into poverty. Have a nice day." :-/ If you take what the AI generates and edit it in any creative way, then it's your work and should be protected, I would think. But check the PDF. Good luck! Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!