I'm with the CO and its teeming myriads.

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

Welcome to IWETHEY!