So recently there has been a lot of debate on AI-generated art and its copyright. I’ve read a lot of comments recently that made me think of this video and I want to highly encourage everyone to watch it, maybe even watch it again if you already viewed it. Watch it specifically with the question “If an AI did it, would it change anything?”

Right now, AI-generated works aren’t copyrightable. https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/ai-generator-art-text-us-copyright-policy-1234661683/ This means you can not copyright the works produced by AI.

I work in games so this is more seemingly relevant to me than maybe it is to you. https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/03/valve-responds-to-claims-it-has-banned-ai-generated-games-from-steam/ Steam has outright said, earlier this month, that it will not publish games on its platform without understanding if the training data has been of images that aren’t public domain.

So right now, common AI is producing works that are potentially copyright-infringing works and are unable to be copyrighted themselves.

So with this information, should copyright exist, and if not, how do you encourage artists and scientists to produce works if they no longer can make a living off of it?

  • Deathcrow@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Right now, AI-generated works aren’t copyrightable. https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/ai-generator-art-text-us-copyright-policy-1234661683/ This means you can not copyright the works produced by AI.

    So right now, common AI is producing works that are potentially copyright-infringing works and are unable to be copyrighted themselves.

    This kind of judgement is pure symbolic politics, because it’s completely unenforceable and I’m confused why you didn’t mention it. No one can prove if a piece of art is AI made and no one has to admit it. So yes, AI art can be copyrighted, just not officially as AI art, but it certainly will be and likely already is as long as there’s a human ‘stand in’.

    There’s a huge gulf of difference between a matter of fact and a matter of law.

    • MJBrune@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      No one can prove if a piece of art is AI made and no one has to admit it.

      There are tools that are being used to attempt to detect if a piece of work is AI-generated. If those tools say something was, it’s then on you to prove that you hand-created it. Even some artists are already having issues because things “look” AI-generated. The onus is on the creator to prove they have the copyright when dealing with copyright infringement.

      So realistically, if you make some AI-generated content, I steal it, what do you do? How do you stop me from using your content?

      • Deathcrow@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There are tools that are being used to attempt to detect if a piece of work is AI-generated. If those tools say something was, it’s then on you to prove that you hand-created it.

        They don’t work. It’s total bunk.

        Even some artists are already having issues because things “look” AI-generated.

        Exactly. See above. No one can (confidently) tell which is which. There’s just educated guessing.

        • MJBrune@beehaw.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          K so you ignore the entire point in my post that the onus is on the creator to prove they have copyright and just point out it’s hard to figure out which content to steal?

          • snowbell@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The creator has a copyright if the relevant authorities have granted the copyright registration to them, that is all they need to prove.

            • Five@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Copyright isn’t registered anymore, it’s granted on creation in almost all jurisdictions that matter. It’s not like there’s documentation beyond the published work.

        • Five@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          They don’t work. It’s total bunk.

          I’ll go one further - they can never work. AI is trained using a system where an artist system generates art, and a gatekeeper system gives a confidence rating of how it looks human. The artist system goes through a training process until it can consistently fool the gatekeeper system. If there was a system that existed that could identify currently generated AI art, it would become the new gatekeeper system, and the artist system would only get better.

      • Computer Guy@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even if there were tools that can dictate what is AI-generated and what not, they’d have to rely on a pattern, or on an artifact from AI-generated imagery (which, as far as I know, does not exist), and that is what can be used as proof, not the result of the tool itself being used.

        • MJBrune@beehaw.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The requirement of proof is on the one making the lawsuit. So if you generate AI content and I steal it, you must prove you own the copyright. With AI-generated content, you do not own the copyright. I can take it without issue.

          • Computer Guy@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            But then, it begs the question, how would you prove it’s an AI work? For all anyone knows, it’s my art, I made it, it’s undistinguishable from what I could make. What the court will see is, I submitted that art in the Internet, you take that, I sue you for copyright, you argue it’s an AI work, and the Court will request you to prove it really is an AI work, and perhaps launching an investigation on me to see whether I really made the AI artwork.

      • RickRussell_CA@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        So realistically, if you make some AI-generated content, I steal it, what do you do? How do you stop me from using your content?

        Whose content is it? What human person holds the copyright?

        • MJBrune@beehaw.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          In that case, if it’s AI-generated content using a training set from the public domain, the content is generated initially as public domain. Adding changes to that, the changes are not public domain. So you’d have to prove that you changed it and that your work on the AI content was transformative, not derivative. But that’s my point, in that case, there is no one that holds the copyright.

          • jarfil@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Whoever claims the copyright first, holds it.

            The only difference is that up to now there was a very low chance of “collisions” between two humans creating the exact same piece of art at the same time, while now a piece of AI art can be fully replicated given a model, a prompt, and a seed… but in practice, there is still a very low chance of two people randomly happening to use exactly the same model, prompt, and seed… so we’re back to square one: whoever claims it first, holds it.

            Just remember to claim your AI generated human-made art before someone else does.

              • jarfil@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Right now, it kind of does. Like if you took someone else’s work and claimed it as your own: unless they can prove it’s theirs, first one to claim it gets to own the copyright.

                Unfair? You bet. There’s things like SafeCreative that has been running for many years (I used to be part of a precursor to that) or even register it as an NFT to have a proof of precedence.

                • MJBrune@beehaw.orgOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  They can prove it’s their by simply showing things like commit logs and creation process. Recreating the work in question. It’s fairly hard to lie about that stuff.

                  First one to claim it doesn’t own the copyright. They still have to argue they own the copyright through a series of details. Specially if someone claims it’s ai generated.

                  • jarfil@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Current copyright law doesn’t require proving anything other than priority of registration/publication.

                    Someone can clam it’s AI all they want, they would have to prove it’s AI. Good luck with that (unless they have the exact model, prompt and seed).

                    LPT: if you want to publish a game on Steam with AI-generated assets… don’t tell anyone they’re AI-generated, register them to get your copyright, and present that as proof to Steam when asked.

                    BTW, creation progress and “commit logs”, can also be faked.