Controversial AI art piece from 2022 lacks human authorship required for registration.

  • Fisk400@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    10 months ago

    Because photographs don’t require other people photographs to work. It just requires the labour of the engineers at Nikon and you payed them by buying the camera.

    Use an AI algorithm with no training set and see how good your tool is.

    • drekly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      10 months ago

      What if I used an open source algo with my own photographs as a dataset 🤔

      • Fisk400@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Then absolutely go ahead. That isn’t what the guy in the post did tough.

      • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        I don’t see why you wouldn’t be able to keep copyright then. Everything involved would have been owned by you.

        That is a big difference to how other generative models work though, which do use other people’s work.

        • drewdarko@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          Because you would have to prove that the AI only learned from your work and it’s my understanding that there is no way to track what is used as learning material or even have an AI unlearn something.

          • Fisk400@feddit.nu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            The people that is stealing art designed their algorithm to not contain proof that they stole art. If they are legally required to prove what training data they used in order to get a copyright then they will design the AI around that. That would immediately disqualify most of the current AIs because they have all been fed stolen art but I am sure they have the tech and capital to start over. And you know, Fuck em.

    • randon31415@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Did you know that it is illegal to take a photograph of the Eiffel tower at night? France lacks the right of panorama, and the lighting system was designed by someone still living. So photographs do require violating copyright law sometimes.

      • Fisk400@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        no no. You are not REQUIRED to break other peoples copyright in order to produce something with a camera. It is something you CAN do if you want to. AI literally cant function without a library of other peoples photos.

        Someone else brought this up in this thread and it is the only circumstance should be able to copyright an AI artwork. If you own the copyright to every single piece of art in the training data. If I take 10.000 photos that are mine and feed them into an AI that produces more photos that are entirely based on my work then it should be copyrightable.

        • randon31415@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Everything in this world is owned by someone, either privately or by the government. (Well, astrophotography is an exception, but I did say ‘in this world’) You CANNOT take a photo without pointing it at something that is owned by someone. Is photography theft then?

          • Fisk400@feddit.nu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Owning something and owning the copyright to something isn’t the same. You cant just make insane claims about something and expect me to engage with it. You are fully capable of taking photos that you own with the current copyright framework or photographers wouldnt be a profession and nothing would have pictures of anything.

            • randon31415@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              And, as you said, you are fully capable of taking images that you own with the current copyright framework and creating legal AI images. If you don’t see the parallel between the two concepts and instead revert to insults and name calling, well, then I think I’ll just invoke “don’t feed trolls” and move on.

              • Fisk400@feddit.nu
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                What insults and name calling? Shit, If I had known that you were this fragile I wouldn’t have bothered to respond properly and just called you retarded.