If you’ve spent some time with AI already you’ve probably realised that it takes some level of domain-specific information to get AI to produce a useful output. For example, people who are already artistic are better at getting artistically interesting images out of an AI. The idea and the guidance have value and are essential to the outcome. Prompt engineering is a very real skill.
Now this case is about an autonomous tool, which by definition doesn’t include a human’s guidance. I agree that the waters here are definitely murkier. If however, you put a blanket over all AI-assisted works and say that the author/engineer doesn’t deserve credit, or protection, then I think you’re off the mark.
Hard disagree, there is a near certainty that any work produced from a current generative “ai” model includes material scraped from the web in violation of the release license.
Whatever skill they apply, it’s still by default an unlicensed derivative work.
You seem to be arguing that hard work and/or preparation are important factors when deciding eligibility for copyright. But legally, they are completely irrelevant.
You cannot copyright a seashell you find, under any circumstance. Even if you have “domain-specific” knowledge that guides you to places where you expect to find the prettiest or most unusual seashells. Even if you have a specific seashell in mind and intend to keep discarding seashells until you find the one that matches your vision. Even if you guide your search in the direction of other found seashells that increasingly approximate what you desire.
AI generated works are like seashells. Even if it takes skill and planning to ensure you will find something that matches your original vision, they still cannot be copyrighted. Because you still didn’t make them yourself.
If you’ve spent some time with AI already you’ve probably realised that it takes some level of domain-specific information to get AI to produce a useful output. For example, people who are already artistic are better at getting artistically interesting images out of an AI. The idea and the guidance have value and are essential to the outcome. Prompt engineering is a very real skill.
Now this case is about an autonomous tool, which by definition doesn’t include a human’s guidance. I agree that the waters here are definitely murkier. If however, you put a blanket over all AI-assisted works and say that the author/engineer doesn’t deserve credit, or protection, then I think you’re off the mark.
Credit? Sure, whatevs! Copyright, royalties or ownership? Absolutely not.
Hard disagree, there is a near certainty that any work produced from a current generative “ai” model includes material scraped from the web in violation of the release license.
Whatever skill they apply, it’s still by default an unlicensed derivative work.
You seem to be arguing that hard work and/or preparation are important factors when deciding eligibility for copyright. But legally, they are completely irrelevant.
You cannot copyright a seashell you find, under any circumstance. Even if you have “domain-specific” knowledge that guides you to places where you expect to find the prettiest or most unusual seashells. Even if you have a specific seashell in mind and intend to keep discarding seashells until you find the one that matches your vision. Even if you guide your search in the direction of other found seashells that increasingly approximate what you desire.
AI generated works are like seashells. Even if it takes skill and planning to ensure you will find something that matches your original vision, they still cannot be copyrighted. Because you still didn’t make them yourself.