I’ve heard arguments for both sides and i think it’s more complicated then simply yes or no. what do you guys think?

  • faintwhenfree@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think AI art should be copyrighted. Copyright is for human creation. The phrase that human generated should be copyright protected (if its unique enough) but not the generated image.

    It’s the same argument to Scott’s bear video is public domain, because a bear clicked shutter button, even though camera belonged to tom scott.

    • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’ls less like a bear and more like a camera that that can navigate the multidimensional latent space filled with concepts that can give rise to novel art. In the real world you can up, down, left, right, in or out, but in a latent space not only can you go those places, you can go to where Muppets meets impasto.

      There’s also a spectrum depending on what tool you’re using and your level of involvement, but most people tend to assume and lump everything together into the same category. I know with web based interfaces wit can be slow and cumbersome to iterate, but with open source models based on Stable Diffusion you get a lot of freedom. That’s mostly what I base my knowledge off.

      Here are some videos of what I mean:

      https://youtu.be/-JQDtzSaAuA?t=97

      https://youtu.be/1d_jns4W1cM

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtbEuERXSqk

      As long as there’s a human to set parameters, iterate, correct, generate, and evaluate, I don’t think there’s any question as to who made it. Just like an image from nature doesn’t need to be a creator, only someone there to capture it.