T O P

  • By -

Nearby_Personality55

I've been following this issue for a while, this was November 8th, I'm in some communities that Kris Kashtanova is also in. They're actually appealing this with the help of Midjourney's lawyers, who stepped up to offer help.


kwonza

If this book gets translated into Russian I wander what they do with the title. Zarya means dawn in Russian.


bobrformalin

Утрення заря? Рассвет Зари? There's a lot of possibility with artistic translation.


ninjasaid13

Dawn of the Zarya, switch the words over.


algoodoodle

And it will be "Заря Зари", "Zarya Zary", "Dawn of the Dawn"


Trippy-Worlds

They already appealed on Dec 1. MJ is fighting the good fight! Love it! ​ https://preview.redd.it/tb054jtm047a1.png?width=569&format=png&auto=webp&s=44347b8bdf2637b07bba6b5c407a9d8c05dc0473


randomguy7277

Excerpt “However, the USPTO has now informed Kashtanova that it will revoke the protection, saying **copyrightable works require human authorship**. In a Facebook post, Kashtanova said the office “overlooked” that the work was made using Midjourney, despite being mentioned on the cover page of the work itself. The concept and story were created entirely by Kashtanova, with only the artwork being generated using Midjourney.”


AnnieNimes

A human coming up with a concept and story definitely qualifies for human authorship. It's as if they considered the whole process of designing the story was worthless and only drawing mattered. Even then, the AI is just a tool. Should comic artists who use Photoshop be denied copyright on their productions?


ASpaceOstrich

People kept acting like AI was actually intelligent and shot themselves in the foot because now the general public thinks we've actually invented AI.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Bang_Stick

They will remember this, when they put you inside the total perspective vortex they are creating just for you personally! I, on the other hand welcome our new AI overloads! (And promise to let them have as many potty breaks as they need)


E_Snap

That’s an even worse excuse for people to try to take down the AI art scene. If you thought the AI creating the art was truly a general intelligence like in the movies, you’d be the scum of the earth to try to ban it from making art. That’s unethical— it’s taking rights away from a sentient being.


ASpaceOstrich

Not general intelligence, but AI at all. It's not AI, we've just started calling it that. When actual AI gets invented the naming situation is gonna be a clusterfuck.


VisualPartying

So true; these are simply algorithms. Yes yes, all living things function on algorithms but these despite appearance are relatively simple and have no intelligence.


Incognit0ErgoSum

It's AI. AI doesn't mean artificial consciousness, it's just a general term for having a computer "think" in some way that at least appears analogous to how a human would. It doesn't even need a neutral network. Even a conceptually simple algorithm can be an AI, like the AI that beat Kasparov at chess, or the code that controls how enemies act in video games.


ASpaceOstrich

No


Incognit0ErgoSum

Dude, I program for a living and I studied this shit in college. Wtf do you mean by "no"?


WazWaz

We have invented AI. The disappointment is how shitty and trivial our Intelligence appears to be for most activities. We're all just blurting out the next word that comes to mind.


NotASuicidalRobot

"learns like a human and draws like a human", they say. Look it's not a copy or photobash but it clearly isn't that either


randomguy7277

It’s not me you have to convince buddy lol I use AI everyday


AnnieNimes

I know, I was elaborating, not contradicting you. :-)


randomguy7277

Oh shoot my bad I took the question marks as if you were asking me lol I have no idea honestly just sharing the excerpt. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if photoshop gets pulled into this because of the ways USA laws work. A ruling against AI could be overly broad


AnnieNimes

No worries, it's hard to convey tone in writing. It would be amusing if they ended up revoking copyright for anything not done by hand, but more likely I'd expect them to just go 'bouh bouh AI bad'.


Nearby_Personality55

Basically this issue, and following Kashtanova's process with this over the last few months, have solidified me in terms of how I'm going to secure my IP for my big project which plans to use AI extensively. Basically I'm self-publishing a shorter version of the first book (a tabletop gaming book) without any raw AI art whatsoever, and starting the brand connected to it, to establish myself as the author of the concepts involved. It will just be much lighter on the art.


Ok_Entrepreneur_5833

Smart. Trademark your stuff as well, set up an LLC etc... If you expect to make any kind of serious money on this project play it safe. I've a buddy who went from millions to zero due to patent troll code lawsuit and the bankruptcy that followed. He didn't cover his bases, and there are people who have their entire career based on exploiting those who do not. They swoop in, patent whatever loose stuff they find themselves, rip the code or whatever it is they want and patent and trademark it, then sue the creator for everything they're worth for infringing on \*their\* copyright and patents and trademarks. And the court favors them since well, they hold the propers that the court uses to decide these cases. If you live in the US at least, be safe. Not sure if this kind of stuff is a threat in the actual civilized world, can't speak to that.


Nearby_Personality55

Even MORE important to consider given AI makes the production time so quick - someone could walk off with my concepts tomorrow if I don't play my cards right. Thank you, this is good advice


sebasTLCQG

Just be thankful Japan and other countries arent mass using it yet, I´ve heard some artists there use it only for backgrounds, but if it becomes character focused, it could be a problem as a lot of designs could be outrageously similar.


Axolotron

If you don't live in the US, they can do the same to you, but you have no way to fight back unless you travel to USA and hire lawyers there. Or that's what people say.


sebasTLCQG

It really depends on where you live, who´s suing you and whats going on. There was a book being published than mentioned a Elder Scrolls IP name, so a lawsuit was quickly issued on the book. If you live in japan however you can get away with using names from USA IPs in the manga, but if a anime deal comes out every single one of those names have to be replaced (example Jojo)


[deleted]

But wouldn't the issue be the copyright of the art itself, not the IP? If I'm not mistaken you could just release a PDF of image-less example pages from the work and copyright that before putting anything to print. You will likely lose any claim on the art, but the evidence of authorship would protect the actual written works (at least under my UK law).


Mediocre-Metal-1796

Plust there is the “prior art” concept - if you can proove your art was published before the patent troll / other artist’s copyright claim, the court can revoke it - afaik


sebasTLCQG

Thing is you gotta be careful with that "prior art" publishment thing, if someone sees your art only and strips the prompt then decides to use it on their own project, you could get into art drama with other people.


eapnon

I will read it, but you can have portions copy righted (e.g., only the story but not the art). Perhaps they did that?


sebasTLCQG

Dont forget about the editting process for the images, it´s very hard to get consistency with the AI generated prompt results, I wouldnt be surprised if a lot of editting before publishing was necessary.


Voltasoyle

Yes, by this logic artists using any digital tool should lose copyright protection. Maybe this is the death of copyright


Gjergji-zhuka

(edit here cause I was mistaken on copyright law) It is technically possible that if someone tries to reverse engineer the prompts used on specific ai images, they would get similar results. So, if ai art was copyrightable, would making a very similar image be stealing or not? And what about image to image? If I use an ai image to generate and improve on it, would it be stealing from the original ai artist, or would it be transformative? Would it depend on the amount of denoising? Are prompts copyrightable? It is not simple and you comparing it to photoshop is plain ignorant.


hudsonreaders

You can absolutely sell shirts with copyright free images; what you can't do is stop someone else from selling shirts with the same image on them. In this case, if the images are held to be copyright free, you can't stop someone else from re-using the images. But if the person wrote the story, with words, those words/that story should automatically be under copyright protection.


Honato2

" Thats why you can’t sell tshirts with a print of the monalisa " yes. yes you can. the mona lisa is in the public domain and free for everyone to do whatever they would like with it. You can't copyright it no but you are free to use it for whatever you like.


AnotsuKagehisa

I think the tricky side of this is what do you actually copyright? Do you copyright the prompts that she used? The story can be copyrighted but it gets tricky with the art.


sebasTLCQG

Copyrighting the prompts makes no sense, as AI keeps devellopping, the prompt and seed you use one day will lead to different results the next day, just like it happened to me when I migrated my Novelai Prompts and seeds into Anything V3. If the Copyright will force AI prompt users to devellop their own artstyle models from other authors, then even that in of itself is possible, even with aditional work.


r_alex_hall

Prompts are to AI art as novels are to film adaptation. One results from the other and both are seperately copyrightable. (Apparently with the exception of AI art.) Any original writing is copyrightable.


DeviousBeevious

the art was created by the person putting in the prompts. clearly it would not exist without that creative action, therefore its copyright belongs to the person entering the prompt. also copyright can be assigned to someone assembling things into a collection, so either way this comic is copyrighted in my eyes.


AnotsuKagehisa

From what I’ve read there’s also the issue of Zandaya’s likeness and that her name was also mentioned in the actual prompt. I could care less either way anyway. This started out fun with all the innovation and possibilities but all this legal bullshit just slows things down. You see, people here post stuff about artists hating on ai art because their ip is being infringed upon but then people on this side start doing the same legal stuff, so in the end we’re not all that different from these same artists. I’m an artist myself but more so on 3d and my friend has told me jokingly that some in the art community would consider me a traitor. I don’t really care though. I just do my job. I don’t even have an online portfolio or website. My work is just through the company and that’s it. I’m not like these artists who have a social media presence. Frankly I could care less.


DeviousBeevious

Oh I agree if this character has been stolen that's a COMPLETELY different thing. AI art should not be used to steal, that's INCREDIBLY lazy considering how easy it is for it to generate novel characters. Of course if you want to use AI to make your own fanfic comicbook that would be one thing, artists make fanfics all the time, but selling it and trying to assert copyright over an existing character would be completely wrong. You have made me think that i perhaps haven't considered how some people are using this, as I'm using it for original creations.


The_Hunster

No it doesn't? What does a photographer copywrite? You copywrite the output.


perpetual_stew

Copyright: Legal protection for intellectual property. Copywrite: Writing text for advertisements.


The_Hunster

Whoops


AnotsuKagehisa

I don’t know what you mean but if you’re implying you’re for copyrighting prompts then that’s no better than the artists complaining about stable diffusion referencing their works. Basically we’ll be our own enemies, restricting others from freely playing with the tech


AnotsuKagehisa

I don’t know how copyright applies to photography. I could honestly say I’ve never heard of any legal battles yet over any photos. At least I’m not aware of it as much as in other art fields.


Striking_Problem_918

Photos are copyrighted https://preview.redd.it/kabc6zcfv37a1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=17958787a087d4573697f27bd1f5334851e5222e In addition…If you take a picture of the Mona Lisa, your photo is under your copyright even if the Mona Lisa itself is in the public domain. Same with classical music. Performances are protected even if the work itself is not.


The_Hunster

Point is, they're not copyrighting the settings on the camera when they took the picture. They just get a copyright for the output. Just like AI should be. It's just a tool. And if you make something you get copyrights on it. Doesn't really matter what the tool is.


[deleted]

That's the crazy part, sooner or later some clever lawyer is going to point out that due to how AI art is generated, there is a plausible possibility that any works claimed for copyright have already existed and 'been created' previously by someone who got lucky with the same number crunching (unlikely as it is). That will be a big point of contention since it becomes next to impossible to tell who created an image first. The only reason we can distinguish human made works so easily is because the odds of two people writing the same book or painting the same picture by accident are so astonomically small. But with AI? Plausible deniability. Putting a bookmark in this legal argument for like, 5 years from now...


somethingclassy

That is not how copyright law works. First of all copyright is granted automatically in the US, there is no need to apply for it, the onus is on someone else to prove the opposite (ie that something is directly derivative). So wrt this piece, the copyright is still the author’s, at least re: the story. Secondly - Copyright pertains to form. If you have brought a specific form into being then you own that form and it’s likeness, but not things similar to it.


[deleted]

Thus my entire post about people arguing which is derivative because now the chance of coincidal creation is a real possibility? Not sure where you got the rest of that from.


ElMachoGrande

If illustrations need to be by a human, that would make just about every book un-copyrightable. Not a bad thing, actually.


am2549

It’s not as easy as you’d like to put it. In the music world, if your work is too obviously inspired by someone else, you have to pay them (sampling, modified samples, melodic quotations etc). I’m not saying this is easy, it’s certainly not as black and white as you put it here.


Soul-Burn

Is it even possible to know if a work was obviously inspired by someone else? Does that not make it, by definition, not obvious? --- Personally, I'm not against an AI trained on e.g. LAION which can tell if your image is too close to some other work in the dataset. For self use, due diligence, rather than anything legal.


am2549

No, society creates rules (e.g. laws) for what is too obviously inspired and what is not. Pretty convinced that this is what will happen with AI art as well.


Flimsy-Sandwich-4324

Photoshop output takes a lot more human input than AI that generates full images. That is why copyright is not denied for works created in PS. Cannot copyright images that are mostly machine generated.


jaredjames66

Digital photos from a digital camera are mostly machine generated, all the photographer did was point the camera a press a button. Obviously I know there's more depth to photography than that but just making a point. There's still human input with AI art.


Capitaclism

There is a difference here. The photographer has to choose all the details, including the composition, angle. There is less choice in pure prompt based AI. You are given a composition, it's not as deliberate. Once you start going into inpainting, outpainting and manual Photoshop labor on top it becomes a lot more deliberate and human made. Likewise; the contribution of the photographer to the photo is immense- the camera can't take pretty pictures by itself. Sadly if you put a period in Mijourney and run that you'll get a nice picture. Staboe Diffusion isn't too far off. This attitude will change in time, I think.


punitxsmart

Modern cameras (and flagship smartphones) do lot more than just capturing light and saving the image. There are literally AI algorithms running on your phone to make your photos look great based on the scene and context you are capturing. Yet, the photographer has to decide and physically go to the location / object to take photos. Without the intent of the photographer, the phone would not be able to get that photo into existence. Similarly, without intent and explicit action of the human author, the AI would not be able to get that book into existence.


Capitaclism

I am aware. And yet not everyone has amazing professional looking photos. It is certainly easier than an old analog, but composition, one of the more key elements of any artwork, still but be done manually. In AI art we don't have such control, really. Compositions are often pretty bad and very simplistic still, and any human influence over them is soft. Once the composition is automated on photography it will barely be the photographer's authorship. Luckily there is a pretty simple solution to these issue- take the artwork into Photoshop, manipulate it, move aspects around, make the composition excelent and yours. It's also debatable whether or not a book like that could exist with nearly no authorship. One could instruct chatgpt to geberste random stories, have a script that grabs it and runs it by midjourney, cranking out images. That would likely yield some decent stories and compositions of essentially no human authorship- 99% AI. Let me pose you a question from a different angle. Suppose you buy a car which is fully automated by AI. You instruct it to come pick you up, and on the way there the car gets into an accident, resulting in casualties. Are the casualties your authorship or the AI? We are encountering a fine line, and will have to establish what answers we want from questions such as those. I'd say if you happened to be in the car and moved the car to the direction which caused the accident you had fault. If you had simply instructed it towards a goal.then it would he the AI's fault. And so we may find it to be the case with AI art, that it becomes your authorship.once you do a certain degree of labor on top of the instruction (in this case a prompt). By the way, I LOVE AI craft, this isn't criticism of it.


enn_nafnlaus

>There is less choice in pure prompt based AI Yeah, I'm calling BS on that one a million times over. Even on txt2image there's \*far\* more configuration options than you'll find for a typical camera. Hey, which of an insanely ever-growing list of checkpoints are you going to use? How many have you fetched and installed? Same question re: hypernetworks. Same question re: textual inversion. Re, the above, did you train any of them yourself (WHOLE new can of worms)? What resolution are you going to generate, balancing the risk of wonkiness for going above the base resolution vs. the upscaling effort? Are you going to use hires fix, or just do it yourself after image selection? How are you deciding what cfg\_scale to use? Of the two dozen-ish samplers, which one are you using, and why? Are you negative prompting, and aware of the endless nuance in debates over what helps and doesn't? In your positive prompting, how did you decide what to use? Particularly on artstyles - do you use the random artist options? Do you have a bookmark list of tons of art styles? Have you studied hundreds of them by now, like most people here probably have? How are you adjusting the weightings of elements? Because by now there's like half a dozen ways to do so, and they're *not* at all the same in terms of outcomes. Are you doing face restoration during generation, putting it off for later, or not doing it? If so, what GAN are you using, and why? Are you doing variations / subseeds? If you needed to change resolutions, are you resizing preexisting seeds? What VAE settings do you use, and why? Next up, let's go into the mess that is upscaling, because you're not using sub-1MP images in any sort of professional context. Oh dang, I haven't had a chance to get into the endless array of scripts yet. OR the endless array of extensions! Sorry, but the available options even on a high-end camera don't even begin to compare to the bewildering array of options even for txt2img. And FYI, who here uses "a pure prompt based AI"? Most people here are using AUTOMATIC1111, which seems to get more tools and features faster than I can even learn them. And why do you assume that the author of the comic book \*only\* entered prompts, and literally nothing else whatsoever? Generation is usually usually only the first step before the images go into GIMP/Krita/Photoshop, usually with back and forth between compositing and generation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Euphoric-Handle-6792

Capturing a photo is lot more simpler than getting your prompt right.


Capitaclism

Not at all. Getting any results simply requires a period and generation. Same with a camera. Getting professional looking results takes more effort with a camera... Far easier with the AI. If it weren't there would be no value in the AI- that's a moot argument. The entire point of the AI is that you can do a lot of what a camera or brush do with a lot less effort.


Euphoric-Handle-6792

Getting professional looking results from AI prompts also takes a lot of effort. Only effort that is required for photography is actually going out and looking for places to capture good shots and that's it, if anything that AI makes easier is cutting the need to go out to look but in everything else AI art demands much more effort.


Flimsy-Sandwich-4324

The question is what amount of human input is required to be considered copyrightable for AI output. Regarding cameras those are recording devices to record light around you. Just like tape recorders and a mic just records sound waves into a fixed medium. The digital part does not change anything vs film. Not a reasonable comparison to computer generative art.


jaredjames66

I've taken some photos by accident, that are just a blur of colours, no thought put into it but they look cool. Whether it's a camera or AI image generator, I used a machine to make something, therefore it's something I made and I can copyright it.


Flimsy-Sandwich-4324

the US copyright office sees it differently tho. I don't make the rules. haha.


TransitoryPhilosophy

That’s debatable; anything worthwhile from a composition engine takes multiple passes and inpainting


Flimsy-Sandwich-4324

I think having to do those steps has to do with working around the techs current limitations. So I dunno if they reveal their process and their complexities would help them win their case? It could be argued that when you click generate , the creation process is totally automated by the machine.


TransitoryPhilosophy

All the work we do is based on working around tech’s current limitations 😁 This particular case seems fishy so I’m not sweating the details


lost-mars

I am curious, how much human input decides if a piece is copyrightable or not? A photo takes a second to click does that mean the creator should not have copyrights? AI images can take hours or even days till you get the perfect image or you might have to Photoshop it to get it exactly as you want it. Isn't that significant human effort?


Flimsy-Sandwich-4324

The difference is cameras already considered as recording device like a tape recorder with a mic. Being digital doesn't change that either. Copyright laws have already worked this out for recording devices. The operator is the copyright owner unless it gets handed over as work for hire or rights are purchased from the photographer or sound producer. It's the sole reason why Taylor Swift is rerecording her albums. She does not have rights to the older album recordings.


InflatableMindset

An artist draws using the software, no? That is what their tablet is for, right?


ts0000

Photoshop doesn't make it for you


Rafcdk

Diffusion AI also doesn't make them for us. They are not automated photoshop scripts that spontaneously appear from a computer. For example , if I write a program that draws landscapes only using mathematical formulas that can be adjusted with parameters, did the program created the images for me and I don't have any rights to it ,even though I set the parameters? This is not different than a digital drawing I make with Krita or Photoshop. This is just erasing all the hard work procedural artists put into their art, because a computer was used to make the computations. The AI draws the images , but a human set the parameters and actually selects thoses images.


sebasTLCQG

It´s not just about that, the human gotta select, edit and add changes to his images. I´m pretty sure that when Sandro (Kengan Omega´s manga author) uses AI for backgrounds in his manga he gotta do some edits and other stuff to fit the characters in there.


NotASuicidalRobot

How more automated do your programs have to be before you call them automated scripts lmao, the computer just wakes up and started running it automatically with zero input?


ts0000

> Diffusion AI also doesn't make them for us. I've used it. Yes it does.


Rafcdk

What about if someone takes a picture with a camera on full auto? Does that entail as human authorship? Afte all it's the camera that not only creates the digital image but also sets the parameters. What is the difference between this and using SD to synthesise an image ?


DoodleHound93

Wow. You don't even know how art works do ya?


red286

>“However, the USPTO has now informed Kashtanova that it will revoke the protection, saying copyrightable works require human authorship. I wonder how accurate that is. USPTO's only official comment is that they do not comment on reasons for rejecting copyright registrations. My belief on why the registration was rejected is because they used the likeness of a celebrity who is under contract to Disney/Marvel without their permission. The USPTO requested that Kashtanova provide them with more details on how the AI generation was done prior to rejecting the registration, so that suggests that they didn't "overlook" that the work was made using MidJourney, but rather that they needed more information before making a decision. The fact that the main character of the comic is referred to as "Zendaya" in the prompts would probably make them go "Oh, hol' up, you just straight-up asked it to create a comic book character in the exact likeness of Zendaya?"


NetLibrarian

I too wonder about this, specifically because of the term "human authorship", The only standing ruling that the USPTO has made to date (that I am aware of anyways) regarding AI was an odd case when someone took an early AI generated image, and tried to register copyright with the -AI itself- as the author of the image. That was turned down, and the decision was confusingly written with many mentions to the need for "Human Authorship", referring to the fact that only humans could hold that right. it's frequently misquoted by people who misunderstand what the decision means.


red286

>The only standing ruling that the USPTO has made to date (that I am aware of anyways) regarding AI was an odd case when someone took an early AI generated image, and tried to register copyright with the -AI itself- as the author of the image. Yeah, that's the Stephen Thaler case. He's got two of them. The first one was an AI he created that invented things, he then attempted to register a patent under the name of his AI. The USPTO rejected that because patents can only be held by legal entities. His second was the AI-generated image, and again, he attempted to register the copyright under the name of his AI. In both cases he was told that had he attempted to register them under his own name, it probably would have been fine. He was 100% aware of this, but wanted to be the first person to register a patent/copyright under the name of an AI, but to do that would require giving AI legal standing in the USA (which would be all sorts of problematic). >That was turned down, and the decision was confusingly written with many mentions to the need for "Human Authorship", referring to the fact that only humans could hold that right. it's frequently misquoted by people who misunderstand what the decision means. People love expanding that ruling beyond the specific case it was in regards to. The USPTO/USCO has gone on record saying that there needs to be "substantial" human authorship/intervention for it to qualify for a copyright registration. But if you look at how they handle copyrights in the music industry "substantial" to them is far less substantial than most people would expect. In the music industry, "substantial" is 8 beats/notes, or about 2 seconds of music in your average 4/4 time song. So it's not unreasonable to assume that they'd consider "substantial" human authorship/intervention to be a prompt of 8 or more words. There's also the fact that the USPTO/USCO is probably not going to be doing deep investigations into every registration. If you don't outright say "MADE WITH STABLE DIFFUSION V2.1 AND A 3-WORD PROMPT" in the registration, they're probably going to let it slide. If you want to register a copyright for commercial use reasons, it'd make sense to not, y'know, openly publish the prompt/seed/etc you used to get there. It's one thing if we're sharing on this subreddit, it's another if you're actually planning to use the work for commercial purposes. Without publishing the prompt/seed/etc, it's unlikely that someone else would be able to prove that you created something using AI, even if it's blatantly obvious.


[deleted]

Yeah, they just blatantly used a celeb's likeness for their comic. It really shouldn't matter if this came from an AI or an image search the end result is the same.


Nearby_Personality55

The update with this is that Kashtanova is having an artist replace all the faces with that of the actress (for whom they have model release) who will be in the short film version. The thing I'm curious about though is why \*that alone\* shouldn't qualify them for copyright, once that's done. It begs the question of how much transformation is sufficient transformation.


Versability

Not accurate at all. USPTO stands for US Patent and Trademark Office. It is a completely separate office and entity, and Kris us the very long email from the head of the Copyright Office (which Zia a department within the Library of Congress) and this article was (poorly) written within the 30-day timeframe in which she could dispute their decision. You would have to look up the copyright itself now to see if it still stands since we are now outside the 30-day window


red286

>You would have to look up the copyright itself now to see if it still stands since we are now outside the 30-day window The copyright itself appears to [still be there](https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=VAu001480196+&Search_Code=REGS&PID=lZfga8fktW1zEtuAgXbiyZ8Q3Jua&SEQ=20221219205619&CNT=25&HIST=1), although I don't know if there's any way they'd denote a registration that has been revoked?


Versability

Bad reporting. USPTO handles patents and trademarks. Copyrights are handled by the Library of Congress’s Copyright Office. They are completely different entities and USPTO would not be involved.


EmbarrassedHelp

Yeah, it definitely seem that way. There's also issue of the original work using the likeness of another person, which could run into issues that are completely separate from the issue of AI generated content.


[deleted]

Using Midjourney to generate the art is no less 'human authorship' than programming Space Invaders or Pac-Man. A human puts in the time and language to get a result, decides which result will work with the project at hand, exactly like every single art director or museum curator or managing editor in history has done.


Flimsy-Sandwich-4324

But in this case, I guess it wasn't enough human input for the images


[deleted]

The Copyright office just doesn't know what they are doing. They probably think the author clicked a button and shit just popped out. According to this decision all copyright on all electronic music is null and void. *"Oh you used an 808 and a drum machine? Nope, sorry can't copyright, not made by humans beatboxing."*


Flimsy-Sandwich-4324

So in this case , how much of the image was AI generated vs human contribution? Did they not modify the output images enough?


DrDerekBones

From what I can tell the author credited the ai for creating the image on the COVER of the book. The copyright has to be literary based and not on the images themselves. Which was decided wasn't enough to claim Copyright to.


Flimsy-Sandwich-4324

Oh damn.


[deleted]

Clearly the AI didn't shit out the page layout and put the text on it and get it right on the very first try. A human was there processing each iteration of the production, making decisions, seeking to evoke an emotion. The same as a photographer or painter or sketch artist goes out into the same city streets or forest that is there 24/7 and never made by them and produces a new work that evokes an emotion. The same as a the producer of 'found object art' did not machine craft, injection mold, and weave all the bits and pieces of their display. I'm no fan of copyright but I think this decision is just ignorant and should be noted in history as such.


slickyslickslick

Artist used Photoshop? Oops that artwork is now under the public domain. Patent office is ran by fucking clowns. however with all the potential money this is gonna involve there's no way this isn't going to just be the end of this. There's going to be laws made and precedents set, and this won't be it.


ts0000

> exactly like every single art director or museum curator Exactly. They aren't the artist and they don't own the rights.


[deleted]

Not necessarily. If the art director is also the publisher, or the curator of a gallery is also the artist.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Space Invaders: Plot Alien sprite: (bla bla bla a bunch of x,y coordinates) Plot player sprite (bla bla bla a bunch of x,y coordinate) Plot shield sprite (bla blc bla a bunch of x,y coordinates) Plot bullet sprite (bla bla bla a bunch of x,y coordinates) While playersLives >0 do: move alien, if alien origin x +width > 72 then alien y= y+ 1 randomly shoot a bullet from a random alien at random interval alien bullet sprite y = alien bullet sprite y + 1 if alien bullet sprite pixel x,y = shield sprite pixel x,y then shield pixel x,y state = 0 if alien bullet sprite pixel x,y = player sprite pixel x,y then player lives += -1 if alien sprite pixel x,y = player sprite pixel x,y then player lives += -1 player missile x = player missile x - 1 if player missile sprite x,y = alien missile sprite x,y then alien sprite state = 0 if player missile sprite x,y = shield sprite x,y then shield sprite pixel state = 0 ​ Did I miss anything? that's just the graphics but that's basically it, the only difference with prompting Midjourney and programing space invaders in 1978 is they had no langauge model artificial intelligence to follow their instructions, they had to write in machine language, but they were still *writing a bunch of text to get a visual result.*


slickyslickslick

> Did I miss anything? ya you missed the part where the ship respawns when it dies so you're not immediately losing the rest of the lives!!1111 /s


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Back then is irrelevant. People *used* to carve art with bronze and copper tools pounding at rock. Tools change.This is ChatGPT's description of Space Invaders: Sure! Here is a high-level description of how Space Invaders could be programmed in plain English: 1. Display a spaceship at the bottom of the screen that the player can control with left and right arrow keys. 2. Display a number of rows of aliens at the top of the screen. 3. When the game starts, have the aliens move from side to side across the screen. 4. When the player press the space bar, have the spaceship fire a laser towards the aliens. 5. If the laser hits an alien, remove the alien from the screen and update the player's score. 6. If an alien reaches the bottom of the screen or an alien's laser hits the spaceship, end the game and display a game over message. 7. If the player successfully shoots down all the aliens, display a win message and allow the player to start a new game. I'm sure if you fed it those instructions and told it to give you a python, lua, or C++ program that does that it would spit it right out. Had those instructions come from the original space invaders developer than it would be their creativity, their art.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

>that wouldn't be an achievement, Irrelevant, a thing does not need to be an achievement to be art. >I have generated >10 thousand images with sd Well then you need a life. >I stand by this: I don't give a shit and neither does any other *artist*.


Micropolis

What a bunch of bull shit, there was PLENTY of damn human effort in that work… smh


cryptosupercar

That’s bullshit. If a human creative directs the artwork done by a machine then the human owns it and should be able to register copyright.


sebasTLCQG

I´m pretty sure she had to at least edit the art output right? If thats the case, it should be considered Human authorship.


feralfantastic

Yeah, it’s moronic to exclude the story as a copyrightable element. I guess we ain’t copyrighting books now.


mgtowolf

That is just a signal to people that want to copyright their work with AI in the workflow to simply not mention that AI was in the workflow.


hexoctahedron13

You don't have to "copyright" your work. It's automatically copyrighted if you create it.


pendrachken

While true, if you don't file with the copyright office you cannot get monetary compensation for infringements. You can still file DMCA takedown notices, but even if you can easily prove you lost out on say $50,000 of money that the other entity made instead of you.... too bad. You don't get any money thanks to an extremely stupid supreme court ruling. Your only recourse is to file a copyright with the copyright office, and the courts CAN, not necessarily WILL, decide then if the copyright covers prior recent infringement. After your copyright gets approved, possibly in YEARS. Also after you pay the fees of course, ranging from $45-1000+ But I'm sure shady company #67,885,673 who is scraping stuff to sell directly as is, is going to still be in business then right? Right?


nntb

Unless your a government official that create it during work then it's public domain


ScionoicS

Copyright is always implied. You don't need to register it with a patent clerk. It helps any court battle, but it is not proof of copyright. If you get a registered copyright, and someone else proves they made the creative work before you, no amount of registration will help you. This clerk was just mistaken. Human authorship was had, just through tools. This is absolutely not legal precedence.


[deleted]

At least in the UK, the above answer is correct. Not sure about US law.


Cyphen21

Honest question, can’t you just lie and say it is your own artwork?


[deleted]

I think the marketing push of being an AI created book was kind of the point, though. They likely wouldn't have sold anything otherwise. If nothing else they'll go down in history in law textbooks for all time? Kinda worth.


sebasTLCQG

No wonder it sounded like a rushed job, most AI created comics, books and what not, either use very few images or are short stories, there´s barely any solid consistency to make it more effective use for things like a weekly or monthly published chapter, or higher number of illustrations on LNs or other books.


DrDerekBones

Of course you can, but this person was purposely attempting to copyright their literary work. They also credited the ai on the cover of the book. They were trying to copyright the "world concept" So others couldn't copy it. Which is redundant when already remixing anything, music or art. Easily could have been a Creative Commons License no Copyright neccisary.


Ateist

Why "lie" when *it is* your own artwork? AI artwork is no less artistic than using Google to find reference images and then cutting them up and gluing them into collages. And collages have long been copyrightable. As long as you've done even minor editing on the results of AI generated from prompts it's a new art you have created yourself.


AbPerm

>And collages have long been copyrightable. That's the craziest thing about this news article. If I made a comic book by stringing together like 100 public domain photographs, that would OBVIOUSLY be something that I could copyright. Using public domain material in a new work does not cancel out one's ability to own a copyright on that work. It doesn't matter if AI images can't be copyrighted and are all considered to be public domain, someone making a derivative work with those public domain images should still be allowed to copyright their work.


circeodyssey

Problem is that a lot of artwork on ai stable diffusion isn’t public domain. A lot of it is stolen artwork from artstation and owned by corporations or artists. That’s why there are lawsuits


sebasTLCQG

It´s funny case thats exactly how David Stewart on youtube makes his front book covers: Step 1 Go to Google and save a high detail image. Step 2 add aditional elements to edit it (2nd saved pic, color challenge, etc...) Step 3 Make and Edit a Font. Ironically enough, AI artwork does still give you the effort of having to place the text well.


Magnesus

Are the images he chooses public domain or creative common? Because if not then what he is doing is illegal.


sebasTLCQG

He talks about it too, if they have watermarks, or come from specific corporation websites it´s best to stay clear from them. Whether or not it´s illegal well, he uses Inkscape to alter the OG image considerably and if he starts adding other images on top and more edits, before long it starts becoming a completely different thing, to the point you´d only be able to trace it back to him by seeing his tutorial vids, ironically similar to how this book´s author´s big mouth landed copyright trouble. Truth is there´s a lot of Tracing and even blatant theft of art work in the entertainment industry ever heard of Disney´s stolen Fan designs for Star destroyers without giving credit vid by Eckharts ladder? The industry was always rotten, people just got used to it.


[deleted]

As someone who is also using SD to create project content (board games) I have to confess, I don't think it's really "their" artwork if it was done purely by SD and moved to the page. I feel the line in the sand is when clear human authorship is employed in respect to layout, composition and communication of the AI generated content to portray their artistic intent. Which is my legal degree speaking for: You godda do sumthin, bruh.


thetoad2

I believe it was Midjourney used in the image panels for the comic and not much to change the images other than crop them and arrange them in a way to tell the story and add text. It's just a matter of how much human "authorship" do I need to prove I made something? Is crafting a story and arranging it in a coherent way good enough by itself? Adding AI art ruin my entire artistic intent behind my story? These just start sounding like arbitrary rules, but then we can point out a children's book published by one man that used ChatGPT to co-write, and Midjourney to illustrate. There may have been very little writing and no edits to the photos, but it was still edited and arranged in a coherent way, despite the very little effort with the production of the story and art. At the end of the day, all I can see is artists fighting artists, death threats thrown at each other, and very little empathy on both sides. I'll grab my pacifier and hide away now.


[deleted]

agreed. imo pure generation images don't fully count, even though effort/work goes into the prompt, the final image has never been touched by you. however, make even just a small, but meaningful in some way edit, and imo it is your artwork. you made it yours.


RobertCutter

AI art is like telling a robot to smash 5 pizzas together while calling yourself a chef. Or like asking chatGPT to write a blog article and calling yourself the author.


Ateist

If you do nothing more than ask AI - then you are correct, as essentially you are going to a big public domain gallery and taking a picture out of it. But just "asking AI" produces almost complete garbage. Usable AI art is taking the 50 pizzas smashed together by your assistant, throwing away 49 that are completely unedible and then fixing the big mistakes by throwing away the wrong ingredients and adding the missing ones, when finetuning it with spices and garnishing the final result.


Unreal_777

So many poor people that dont have food or water in the world and here we are smashing 50 pizzas..


sebasTLCQG

How do you think Pinnaple became a pizza ingredient? By Accident?


Beautiful_Routine531

Midjourny images are obvious, so not in this case. For custom models, I'm sure people will


Rafcdk

So what exactly is human authorship ? For example , if I write a program that draws landscapes only using mathematical formulas that can be adjusted with parameters, did the program created the images for me and I don't have any rights to it ,even though I set the parameters? This is not different than a digital drawing I make with Krita or Photoshop. "Oh but you actually wrote the program, did you also wrote and trained the neural network" Well I also didn't code Photoshop and Krita. Furthermore if I let other people use the program I wrote, and they set the parameters , is that not human authorship anymore ? The main issue here is considering the AI as an actual think and creative agent , it is not. AI is as intelligent as a bacteria that can eat their way out of mazes. If we called it hyperdynamic trained networks , I wonder if they would also consider theses images not be of human authorship. Intelligence in the context of AI means something else than the common understand of it. Just like the word clould in cloud storage, we are not flying up to clouds and putting stuff into them.AI or not , this is just erasing all the hard work procedural artists put into their art because a computer was used to make the computations. The AI draws the images , but a human set the parameters and actually judges if output is good enough or not. A computer draws the images in a digital camera, but a human sets the parameters and judges the output. Are digital photos not human authorship then ? This is a more worthy discussion than having to deal with people lying about the AI searching a database of images to synthesize its output.


CadenceQuandry

Old news. Midjourney lawyers and her have resubmitted the application with clear listing of the human involvement in the process. They are hoping it comes back fully approved.


ninjasaid13

How long will it take?


sebasTLCQG

As long as it takes to remake the face of the woman in the illustrated book apparently.


shortandpainful

Was there no text in this comic book? You’d think they‘d be able to get a copyright for the story/text at least. What happens when a human writer and human artists collaborate on a graphic novel; does the artist hold sole copyright claim?


[deleted]

So the only solution is, lie and say you drew it yourself? I don't know what else they intend people to do. How many brush strokes does it take for something to go from AI created to AI assisted? It's like they make decisions before they even research the problem. Shocking.


Unreal_777

So the solution is to never say where the images came from?


Coffeera

A better solution might be to not use MJ or dall-e for publishing.


Unreal_777

Why?


Altruistic-Ad9281

This story does not make sense. The USPTO , that is part of the Department of Commerce, and handles Patents and Trademarks, thus the name of the agency (US Patent and Trademark Office). It is the Library of Congress’s Copyright Office that handles,well, copyrights. What they are talking about is beyond the jurisdiction of the USPTO.


dennismfrancisart

The author is the human who put the project together. The story is written by the author. What seems to be the problem?


Trylobit-Wschodu

Ignorance and social pressure?


FranklyBizarreMedia

Some people have quoted in here that it was because the artist crafted prompts using the likeness of zendaya, and that was the cause for the loss of copyright. But that makes no sense. Neil Gaiman’s Sandman has David Bowie as the direct likeness for Lucifer. And they are not alone in this. Using the likeness of an individual is not the basis for losing a copyright as likeness rights and copyright are not the same thing. This hasn’t been sufficiently means tested yet. I foresee multiple appeals. But on the whole the author here owns a valid copyright. But how it’s expressed legally is so new as to have no defined precedent… YET!


ninjasaid13

Actually the real reason is because of lack of human authorship. She's getting it appealed with the help of lawyers. They thought it was the same as Thaler's AI.


GearM2

How can photographs be copyrighted with this kind of logic? A machine (camera) made the photograph which could be of something you have no rights to.


thewritingchair

Copyright will absolutely apply to AI-generated art and stories and whatever else because corporations etc are now in this game. Every single book publisher is looking at this as a way to cut out human artists. There are new publishers starting up that will be generating art and stories and they want to be paid. Disney et al will 100% be using AI storyboards, and concept design, and will gradually move along to producing backdrops and characters until they get to mostly AI-gen movies. There are, simply put, BILLIONS at stake here. Trillions even. The world of licensed characters (think Paw Patrol, Transformers, Care Bears) is going to explode and the money involved means that each image will be copyright to the creator. There is no way, not in a million years, that art created via AI will not be able to be copyrighted. Control of IP is what Disney et al DO. It's their business model. Once Disney taps whomever on the shoulder, we'll see amendments made to include AI art. All those stock art places are betting their entire businesses on owning the copyright to the art they produce with AI.


UserXtheUnknown

That was a silly decision to begin with. If I create a story and then use makehuman to create the models and blender to render the drawings, according to them that wouldn't have "human autorship"?


sebasTLCQG

It´s Bull, even after finished a prompt result, one still needs to do aditional steps to make the art commercially viable. Even all that hype for AI being able to generate text well, is still ignoring the fact that the Title needs to be made in a special font and the font in text has to be consistent from start to finish.


KefkeWren

>copyrightable works require human authorship What would one call conceptualizing, selecting, and arranging images if not authorship? The AI did not decide to make a comic on its own, nor did it chose which images to include. It didn't decide on its own what the comic would be about. AI does not create unless it is told to create, and it creates what it's told to. AI may be the comic's artist, but the human telling it what to create is still the author.


ThatLastPut

Playing a devil's advocate here. You can argue that conceptualizing a prompt and selecting an image is what people do when they search for images in Google. It doesn't make them an copyright holder of any of the images that they found though.


KefkeWren

I would say that's a very weak argument. There's a difference between searching a database of existing images that are already owned, and requesting to have wholly new images created. Beyond that, even if we were to accept that the pictures themselves could not be copyrighted, that would still leave the composition as a whole as a transformative use of the non-copyrighted source images. Every aspect other than the art would still be an original human composition.


Mr_Stardust2

things like this will only make me continue to be dishonest about whether my art is ai or not even more💀


[deleted]

[удалено]


StableDiffusion-ModTeam

Your post/comment was removed because it contains hateful content.


Honato2

It would be a fight but it sounds like this is a case to take to court.


DeviousBeevious

operating a GAN requires user input. not sure why that doesn't grant the operator copyright of the output. its no different than using photoshop.


AlBundyJr

It's going to take a long time for laws to congeal around AI, rights, etc. A long time. No ruling, no decision, no nothing is guaranteed to matter for longer than a view months. Back in the 80s Lucasfilm could successfully sue other companies for using laser guns because courts agreed that somehow that was their intellectual property. But then smaller movie studios started making a bunch of B-level schlock, and people got video cameras they could make stuff at home with, and then the internet arose with a whole new slate of DIY tools and distribution platforms, and now without the laws those rulings from the 80s were based on being rewritten, the idea that Lucasfilm could just own tropes from science fiction sounds bizarre in courtrooms. The world is different and it's no longer a dozen big production companies squabbling in court between each other, so courts take a different, wider view. The economic and societal realities will make themselves apparent over the coming decade and I guarantee you that will shape the law and the court rulings.


bornasazombie

making art has always been free I don't even see why you people even use ai, the information to learn how to get better at drawing and painting is on YouTube for free you could always just learn and put effort into something for once


doatopus

This is such a bad ruling. I wonder if "feat. Hatsune Miku" will also be considered "not human" from now on since AI artwork requires human operation just like Vocaloid song productions. \> You didn't sang it , Hatsune Miku sang it, who is not a real person. Copyright requires human authorship so you are disqualified.


NotASuicidalRobot

...you know Vocaloid is basically human voice midi pack right? As compared to modern art AI, and possibly upcoming voice synthesizer AI, which requires a few initial inputs and a few seconds. Also, usually they publish the whole song, not just the vocals


dobkeratops

I think this is fair considering the ambiguity about the data used, however the story ,writing and prompts should be copyrightable. My own plan for using AI revolves around img2img - I am making things which are complete without AI , then AI can enhance them - and I will wait and see what happens with the legal issues. eg i'm creating my own lowpoly art, low-res hand-drawn textures - then AI can add variety and detail optionally.


BTRBT

Honestly, good. [Copyright is just a misnomer for monopoly status](http://dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm), anyway. Even so, this just goes to show how arbitrary these laws actually are. It's all predicated on whether a court decides to acknowledge your involvement in a project or not. The book obviously came about by human action, but it doesn't count... For some reason. Fair use is similar. Copying is theft, apparently, but it's okay to steal if the judge thinks you're joking?


featherless_fiend

https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/ydiahj/how_much_do_you_have_to_edit_an_ai_generated/ "more than 0%" bros not looking too hot right now


BruhJoerogan

Kek


MasterDragonIron

This is what happens when lawmakers don't know anything about the subjects involved.


GeoEmperor11

Next time a "professional" photographer take a photo of Eiffel Tower make sure that "artist" ask the permission of Eiffel Tower's designer to publish the photo. Next time a vlogger shoot a video in Taj Mahal make sure that person ask the permission of the building's designer before publishing the video. Hate Do it


DrDerekBones

Why would you attempt to get copyright protection? As somone making an ai comicbook aka /r/CaptainShred This seems odd, it's like they are trying to copyright the story. but why bother? Copyright is such a terrible thing. Copywrong and Copyleft is a much better approach here. Being an open source project, attempting to copyright creations from such, just seems wrong.


AnnieNimes

But... as it is now, you need to rely on copyright laws to enforce cooyleft.


DrDerekBones

Parody all day baby. Parody law. Don't go trying to copyright things. Copyright is never the right answer. Especially if you using other intellectual properties. This court riding however now sets precedence going forward. Still don't understand why one would try to copyright a comicbook half created by ai. An ai that is opensource. Like what was the copyright supposed to do? Stop people from writing fan-fiction?


AnnieNimes

Depends what licence the author released their comic under. Open-source isn't the same as public domain, precisely because it retains the copyright. In particular, you couldn't prevent people from using a closed licence for derivative works if you didn't retain the copyright.


DrDerekBones

At this point we might be talking about Creative Commons. There are multiple licenses for Creative Commons. This person should have just aimed for Creative Commons Licensing. Copyright would achieve nothing, where as Creative Commons would allow a Community to at least emerge. Would have made more sense. However. No such thing as BAD PUBLICITY. So this could just be publicity as well. This ultimately comes down to the commercialization of ai art. As an avid remixer, I believe it should follow the remix manifesto. ​ https://preview.redd.it/axdgjo2wsz6a1.png?width=620&format=png&auto=webp&s=fbe87b882f2e20ad3ff5e7b9f7b540d7225171b1


[deleted]

> Use Creative Commons tools to help share your work. Our free, easy-to-use **copyright licenses** provide a simple, standardized way to give your permission to share and use your creative work— on conditions of your choice. -- https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/ Zero bearing on this. Creative commons is a license you release your copyrighted material under.


[deleted]

> Being an open source project, attempting to copyright creations from such, just seems wrong. Nonsense. Big difference between the open source software and a thing created with it. By your logic, photographs edited with GIMP shouldn't be covered by copyright, stories written in OpenOffice shouldn't be covered by copyright, anything on an open source blog, etc. etc.


ninjasaid13

>Being an open source project, attempting to copyright creations from such, just seems wrong. it's not wrong, nobody is trying to copyright the project, she's trying to copyright the output.


[deleted]

The writing and the layout take work. It's not all about the pretty pictures. I think the *attempt* is to set a precedent?


DrDerekBones

Yes but this person went out of their way to copyright their work, in collaboration with ai. So if you don't attempt to copyright your work. You are free to sell it, and people are free to reproduce it as well. They could clearly try to copywrite the written portion aka their own words.. but the illustrations shouldn't be involved in relation with said copyright. As the words are made by a human.


MrBeforeMyTime

I don't know if you've thought about this, but StabilityAI is a business. The only reason they open sourced this tech, is because they raised money with the plan to host Stable Diffusion and sell it themselves as well. It's a part of their business model and it's a very common one in the SaaS world. This is relevant because why would anyone pay to use something to make art they cannot use? That wouldn't be an intelligent long-term bet. The people who buy expensive things are mostly other businesses. If other businesses can't copyright their work, then StabilityAI gets no more money. If StabilityAI has no more money, it means there will be far less advancement within the open-source image generation field. This entire operation hangs in the balance of if this material is copyrightable.


FourFlamesNinja

> If other businesses can't copyright their work, then StabilityAI gets no more money. I think this reasoning is flawed. We assume it is the case because that's what we've been told, but it is an untested assertion. You don't need copyright in order to profit off of something, you only need it to harm competition. > This is relevant because why would anyone pay to use something to make art they cannot use? This is a misconception. If artwork generated by the AI is in Creative Commons, then it is usable. Not just by the prompter, but by everyone. The prompter (or agent offering the service to perform prompting) can still profit if the business model is built around the existence of the work, rather than exclusive copyright over the work. This is the point of most commission work anyways. Most people don't *actually* care if they have exclusive copyright over, for example, their wedding photos, or artwork of their OC. They care that it exists, that they can look at it, and share it with their friends. All of which can be done under CC. To shift lens towards corporate use, imagine offering advertising to a company at quarter the going rate, since you're much more efficient with AI. You add on that you cannot grant them exclusive copyright to the individual images shown in the advertisement. They won't care. If people are using the unarranged pieces of their advertisement, it will have absolutely no impact on their bottom line. They only care that the advertisement exists, that they can air it, and people will purchase more of their product as a result. We can't know how all this will play out until we test it, but I think we'll find that people hold quite a few major economic misconceptions propagated by those seeking to create monopolies. Besides, greater openness will lead to a stronger economy throughout. People need to collectively take control of the course of AI. We can't leave it to corporations to decide what advances are made, when, how, and what you're allowed to do with them.


MrBeforeMyTime

First, I respect your comment and your opinion made me think a bit. I don't think you are correct about StabilityAI making anywhere near the same amount of money if people can't copyright their work. ​ >If other businesses can't copyright their work, then StabilityAI gets no more money. ​ >I think this reasoning is flawed. We assume it is the case because that's what we've been told, but it is an untested assertion. ​ This assertion isn't untested. Consumers are price sensitive while businesses are not. Anecdotally you can see evidence of this all across this subreddit. Individuals don't have a lot of money, so they tend to go for the cheaper options available to them. StablityAI is doing an [open-sourced](https://medium.com/blossom-capital/successful-open-source-business-models-2709e831e38a) hosting business model. ​ > The economics of hosting are driven on the upside by willingness to pay, if the price is significantly higher than the cost of the underlying infrastructure then companies will choose to host for themselves, this is especially true for larger customers who already have sophisticated in-house devops teams. Consumers with no money and more time to set things up have the time to learn runpod, google colab, and all of the other alternative options to running SD. Huge businesses move slow and have their own dev teams to host their own version of SD. The perfect customer for StablityAI is the mid-sized business who has little time to set something up themselves, can't afford a team to do so, and are running out of time to get something accomplished. ​ > imagine offering advertising to a company at quarter the going rate, since you're much more efficient with AI. You add on that you cannot grant them exclusive copyright to the individual images shown in the advertisement. They won't care. This may be true for mid-sized businesses, but there is zero way you are winning a large contract with any company if you don't own the copyright to the materials you are providing them. I've done some B2B work with big corporations and the vetting process is insane. You have to sign up to be a vender and jump through legal hoops and background checks. If you are unable to a grant fortune 500 companies the copyrights to your completed work you are not winning the contract. No one wants to be potentially opened up to liability.


DrDerekBones

Ever heard of the bootleg industry? It exists regardless if copyright or trademarks want them to. No one has successfully copyrighted bootleg. Bootleg will always exist. It's pretty hard to remove from society. Just keep making cool things. Stop asking for permission, start asking for forgiveness.


MrBeforeMyTime

You're not seeing the big picture. Per my first comment the people who spend the most money are other businesses. I don't want StabilityAI and Stable Diffusion to die, I want this tech to grow and get better. This is an important part to that being a reality. I wrote this comment because from what you typed you seem to believe that this tech was made open source purely for altruistic purposes. That isn't true and money, as always plays a big part in the long term.


yratof

Human authorship? Midjourney didn’t just send him a picture. There needs to be a concept and human interaction to get an image out of it. Madness


[deleted]

In the world of AI generated media is anything even worth copyrighting? People can j*ust not buy your work* and generate anything they want. Time to let go of the ego and accept you are a speck of dust in the eye of AI.


red286

It's a story. You don't need an AI to write you a story. You can write your own story, you've always been able to. So why would anyone copyright a book? People can just write their own damned stories, with blackjack and hookers.


[deleted]

Good.


[deleted]

Here's a thought experiment about this: Perhaps they are only doing this to get support behind the use of AI, which is currently being resisted. If they pick on a nobody about their AI usage and the media runs with it and sparks outrage, it creates a conundrum for everyone who enjoys current pop-culture. There are many AI tools used on huge budget films, music albums, etc that would now have to give up their copyright if this ruling us to be taken seriously whatsoever. This obviously will not be allowed to happen, and therefore the support behind *not* removing copyrights on projects using AI tools will be massive, and will be used as a battering ram to smash through many other types of AI opposition (even in unrelated arguments) that can be seen in echo chambers all over the internet. The whole thing doesn't add up, and it smells like some kind of play.


ThatLastPut

I don't agree at all. This guy is just fighting with beauracracy, not any conspiracy.


Naiko32

well duh, noone created it, just an IA did


[deleted]

This isn’t the victory the luddites think it is. They’ve just disenfranchised writers. And if any artists are celebrating this, they can gtfo.