The AI thread

[Alan Klein]

The reason seems simple. A copyright isn’t attached to the work. It is what attaches the work to the holder of the “right”—the creator of the expression. Without a creator, who holds the right?

There is always a distance between the work and the creator. At some point, that distance becomes too great to confer the privileges of ownership. Pollack’s paint-can and brush shaker methods were deemed close enough—he created the machine with a specific outcome in mind (we can argue about how to describe that outcome). But the creators of the AI algorithms don’t have a specific outcome in mind—if they did, it wouldn’t be AI. The distance becomes too great.

But the case was, I’ll bet, not about the algorithm creator, but rather about the user who made the request. The case perhaps suggests that instructing a computer to make something does not confer copyright, unless the instruction is detailed enough (close enough) to provide the expression. The distance between the instruction and the product can’t be too great.

So, copyright is the same thing as the question of whether a photograph represents factual truth—the chain of creation has to be verified and verifiable to confer the origin of the image.

Rick “for whom photography is about the expression more than the product” Denney

As you said, copyrights must be awarded to humans. The case in question (see link) the copyright was filed for the AI machine as the author. The judge rejected it. In my opinion, had the litigant claimed the picture as his own, he could have gotten a copyright. After all, Photoshop presets have been doing all sorts of changes to pictures. Yet copyrights are granted to the human authors who shot the pictures. Of course, your point about distance is a very interesting one that will be tested in court, as well. Does AI create the work or is it just a tool?

I think another interesting question is can a human claim a copyright for a picture put together from other pictures created by others through the use of AI as a tool? I would say no. But who knows what a court will say? Congress will have to revisit copyrights at some point and write new law regarding AI.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/19/2...district-court

[rdenney]

Derivative works can add coyrightable elements, but can’t take ownership of the original. Thus, public-domain urtext orchestral scores can’t be copyrighted, but an editor can add a range of interpretive information to the score. The edits are copyrightable. But the holder of that copyright can’t claim ownership of the urtext original. Someone else might create an edition from that urtext without fear, unless they copy the edits from the copyrighted edition.

Money to be made? Maybe by lawyers.

My concern is making use of published and copyrighted material as part of the “big data” from which the AI draws. How recognizable does it have to be to constitute an infringement? ChatGPT has already been caught quoting online sources verbatim or with trivial changes, at least a phrase at a time. Legal challenges ahead.

Rick “IANAL” Denney

[jnantz]

the thing I find to be absurd that people use automated cameras, they send the film out to a lab and then claim they made the photographs and own the copyright ( usually without registering the image ) to an image they had very little to do with, in the end it is about the same as filling in instructions for an algorithm that uses millions of pieces of unidentified images to make a puzzle.
yet the algorithm is bad because it's a computer ( that was a machine they didn't put up to their eye, but told the machine what was in their mind's eye ). the whole system is pretty funny.

[BrianShaw]

As you said, copyrights must be awarded to humans.

Actually, I believe copyrights can be assigned to non-human entities, for instance... corporations, as "owner of the right" as opposed to "creator". "Work-for-hire" (by humans, presumably) is how that often happens.

I wonder if AI software can legitimately agree to a work-for-hire contract?

[Torquemada]

Actually, I believe copyrights can be assigned to non-human entities, for instance... corporations, as "owner of the right" as opposed to "creator". "Work-for-hire" (by humans, presumably) is how that often happens.

I wonder if AI software can legitimately agree to a work-for-hire contract?

For legal matters such as copy right, the corporate entity is considered to be a legal person in those dealings.

[Torquemada]

the thing I find to be absurd that people use automated cameras, they send the film out to a lab and then claim they made the photographs and own the copyright ( usually without registering the image ) to an image they had very little to do with, in the end it is about the same as filling in instructions for an algorithm that uses millions of pieces of unidentified images to make a puzzle.
yet the algorithm is bad because it's a computer ( that was a machine they didn't put up to their eye, but told the machine what was in their mind's eye ). the whole system is pretty funny.

Obtuse as usual, very obtuse... SO your saying that an "automatic camera", i assume you mean a camera with Auto Exposure means a person did NOTHING...
Interesting that means that some of the "greatest" photographers since 1980 were using AE cameras, that by your standard have never made an photographic image..

Very few photographers have done their own developing and printing. Whole companies flourished in the day to do the developing and printing for photographers. DO you think that someone that did a wedding shoot, and used say 20 rolls of 220 film, actually developed each roll on their own and then made prints of each frame on their own... shit dude your dreaming

[Torquemada]

its already become a smattering of small groups, each devoted to one little segment of the aspect of photography, wether it be by format or film or digital.

Each group so desperate to retain control that they despise all other view points other then the ones expressed by the site owner, and forum staff. Its sad but its what it is.

[BrianShaw]

For legal matters such as copy right, the corporate entity is considered to be a legal person in those dealings.

The concept is legally known as "corporate personhood". Certain rights normally granted a person may be considered granted to non-human and non-person legal entity. I believe there is singificant contraversy with the concept, however.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/c...-corporations/

[Pieter]

the thing I find to be absurd that people use automated cameras, they send the film out to a lab and then claim they made the photographs and own the copyright ( usually without registering the image ) to an image they had very little to do with, in the end it is about the same as filling in instructions for an algorithm that uses millions of pieces of unidentified images to make a puzzle.
yet the algorithm is bad because it's a computer ( that was a machine they didn't put up to their eye, but told the machine what was in their mind's eye ). the whole system is pretty funny.

Kind of reminds me of the cases of animals taking "selfies" by tripping a camera. Many wildlife photogrophers and cinematographers have used that technique now for ages. I believe an ape was granted the rights to his photo under similar circumstances.

Back to your example, though. A group of photographers gathers at a well-known location to take scenic photographs. A sunset (ugh!) for example. They all are using similar cameras, similar focal lengths, similar film if applicable. The photos turn out pretty much identical. Who can tell who shot which one? They all technically own the copyright but the images are indistinguishable, so maybe none of them really owns exclusive right to the image. It happened to me as an art director when I purchased an image and was accused by Getty of using one of their images without permission. But the image was not theirs, just shot by the same photographer at the same location but on a different day. Hah!

[jnantz]

Kind of reminds me of the cases of animals taking "selfies" by tripping a camera. Many wildlife photogrophers and cinematographers have used that technique now for ages. I believe an ape was granted the rights to his photo under similar circumstances.

Back to your example, though. A group of photographers gathers at a well-known location to take scenic photographs. A sunset (ugh!) for example. They all are using similar cameras, similar focal lengths, similar film if applicable. The photos turn out pretty much identical. Who can tell who shot which one? They all technically own the copyright but the images are indistinguishable, so maybe none of them really owns exclusive right to the image. It happened to me as an art director when I purchased an image and was accused by Getty of using one of their images without permission. But the image was not theirs, just shot by the same photographer at the same location but on a different day. Hah!

the primate in Indonesia ( sorry I got confused! ) for a little while was able to have the copyright to it's selfie, exactly ! Unfortunately courts reversed their decision so I guess the jury's still out, maybe it can be reversed again, we seem to be living in that age.
regarding people at the sunset, they have no commercial value there is no point to register any of them to receive the copyright certificate, unless they were all gorillas and a gorilla took the photographs. im glad you stuck it to the man

Only if the gorilla was working for a corporation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey...yright_dispute

nope I think Naruto was wild. and who knows maybe he's making commerical and editorial images now, he has connections in the community.