The Verge: The US Supreme Court has declined to hear a case over whether AI-generated art can obtain a copyright, as reported earlier by Reuters. The Monday decision comes after Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist from Missouri, appealed a court’s decision to uphold a ruling that found AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted.
7 comments:
This doesn’t actually help, solve, mitigate, or respond to any of the big issues I have with AI (especially AI in art), but I do find it HILARIOUS. A lot of AI art proponents cite “accessibility” as a reason to use AI to make art (to which I say, get good, practice, put some thought and heart into it). And now because there’s no copyright for AI “art,” it’s accessible to the general public! I’m sure this is exactly what AI art proponents wanted! The article of the title was slightly misleading, though–it’s not like all AI generated art is copyrighted. Most creative platforms have integrated AI into their software already, so honestly even a misclick can put AI into your art. There is a certain level of human input that goes into some of these platforms. While I elect not to use these, at the end of the day, some people do and it is (unfortunately, for me) becoming industry standard.
While the current supreme court is a scourge on this earth and the bane of my existence, I do kind of love, in a sick and twisted way, how they just refuse to hear all these controversial cases. Like yeah, I wouldn’t hear this either. The point of a copyright is that you created something and you want to be the only/primary person who can make money from it. However in my opinion, if you ask ChatGPT to make you some art and it does it, you did absolutely nothing to create it. If you commission a piece of art from a real artist, you didn’t create it and you can’t copyright it. So why should you be able to copyright something from AI. I hate AI art and I think its better when you just make it youself, but if people do choose to use it I think they should look at it more as a commission and less as a creation.
This feels like a very rare Supreme Court win. Currently, I’m not a fan of the Supreme Court, but like, yeah, don’t hear this stupid case that's totally fine. I think that the idea of copyrighting AI art is just plain dumb, because it’s not like you have created something that is your intellectual property. AI is literally looking at art that real humans have created and then using it to predict how to draw something else. It is literally stealing other people’s work, and so being able to copy right what comes out from that just doesn’t make any sense at all. Copyright is meant to protect individual HUMAN’S work and ideas, and art made by simply prompting chat gpt has no amount of human in it, and therefore, personally, I don’t even count it as art, but also the lack of human in the process means it cannot be protected by copyright law.
The Supreme Court has been making a lot of interesting decisions lately, and this is one I really don’t know what to make of. On one hand, what an AI algorithm creates is not original, and is inherently based upon preexisting work, but what if a human decided to base their work on something the algorithm generated that also happened to be a nearly exact replica of someone else’s work. It’s still plagiarism, but with extra steps. And this doesn’t really mitigate the main issue with generative Artificial Intelligence and copyright, that being that the algorithms just seem to circumvent copyright laws. OpenAI and other large corporations are training their models on practically the entire internet. Therefore, anything an Artificial Intelligence program creates, assuming they did not have the consent of every user, is in violation of copyright and intellectual property laws. That is the real issue here, and AI generated art not being able to be copyrighted is a win, but maybe not the one needed urgently.
I was immediately glad to see this headline, as copyright and trademark law is a passing interest of mine. It’s also very funny to me that the Supreme Court literally was just like we’re not even going to review this. This ruling feels that it serves those who want to make AI art right in many ways. In particular, the fact that AI art generators definitionally draw from the work of artists who did not consent to having their art replicated by these models—art which in many cases actually IS copyrighted and is being used illegally, and even if not, immorally—stands in contrast to the bids of so-called “AI artists” who would see their art receive copyright protections that actual artists require to ensure the protection of their intellectual property. Admittedly, I will say that I would be disappointed if it turned out that this meant that, for example, video/media artists were unable to copyright art created algorithmically but without any use of generative AI that actually is drawing from other artists’ work.
I do side with the court’s decision not to hear this ruling( very rare Supreme Court win, they’ve had a weird couple of years but I actually think they did a good job hear) they decided not even to review this and I think there’s a good reason for that. I do not think that ai art should be given the same protections as real art because they art not fundamentally the same thing, art has 100% human influences and are built from human creativity which is why it makes sense that people shouldn’t profit off of someone original ideas and take advantage of the time they put into their work. AI on the other hand is the direct opposite of that, there is no creativity or skill when using an ai prompt and there is no creativity either, the image that is generated is built off the work of other artists so how would a copyright even work.
I'm glad to hear this, to hear that "human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright" and that we are acknowledging that there is no human authorship in AI generated "creations". If something was created by AI it definitely should not be eligible for copyright, and I'm glad that the Supreme Court didn't even spare the time to hear this one out. Honestly, nearly all of what is created by AI isn't even worth copyrighting. We're just filling up the internet with a bunch of junk generated by computers to be reabsorbed by other computers. In a way, I feel like we're trying to "protect" the internet from itself. It should be a place for people to share ideas with each other, not for computers to share ideas with each other. I hate AI, especially generative AI. I think people are just creating a bunch of terrible things and we should stop.
Post a Comment