A rule against copyrighting AI art will be unworkable.

I’ve generally been against giving AI works copyright, but this article presented what I felt were compelling arguments for why I might be wrong. What do you think?

halfempty
link
fedilink
7
edit-2
1Y

The article compares Photography, (which despite being “created” by nature is copyrightable), to AI art. The difference between AI art and photography is that AI art is derivative of other artists and generalized into a Model. Nature is not derivative of other photography. Derivative work has special exemptions in copyright law which prevents it from being subject to copyright.

Create a post

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

  • 1 user online
  • 137 users / day
  • 299 users / week
  • 612 users / month
  • 2.26K users / 6 months
  • 1 subscriber
  • 3.36K Posts
  • 67.6K Comments
  • Modlog