Or the novelty of AI-created art will wear off and we’ll go on with our lives.
Or the novelty of AI-created art will wear off and we’ll go on with our lives.
Hives suggests she’s allergic to something. Yeah, see a vet.
“We apologize for the inconvenience.”
Mine keep getting caught on stuff if I don’t clip their claws.
See, now THIS is rentrophy.
If someone ever made dummy cartridges they would sell nicely, I suspect.
@Num10ck Put a black cartridge where the color cartridge should be?
It would create jobs.
That’s thing, though. That’s the question the court is answering. It says that the closest human is STILL NOT CLOSE ENOUGH if they aren’t doing the same level of control and work as a human would be doing if they gave them the prompt.
If you use an AI as just another tool, that’s one thing. But just giving a prompt is NOT creating art.
Yeah, but detectability isn’t a new question, is it? It’s just a twist on the old question of “Did someone else create it other than the guy who claimed it?”
Well, computer forensics IS a thing. Computers keep a record of everything done on them, and if it comes down to a lot of money at stake and a lawsuit then those computers can be looked at.
Funny, because photography is actually the precedent on this. A monkey took a picture, it was not copyrightable.
I’d advise you to keep a record of your creative process here, because it may come down to how many prompts you used to steer it.
@nous I figure a judge wouldn’t count prompts because they are basically commissions. If you commission an artist to create a piece for you, it’s still their piece. If a corporation commissions the artist to create the piece, they can own it as work-for-hire, which is EXACTLY what Thaler was trying to claim in this case, but they aren’t the creator.
If you can replace “AI” with “Professional Artist” and you wouldn’t be eligible for your amount of input, then it’s not copyrightable.
@foggy There’s another article that clarifies the decision. Works created by a human with AI assistance are copyrightable. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-works-not-copyrightable-studios-1235570316/
Works created solely by AI, like if all the human did was enter a prompt into ChatGPT or Midjourney, are not copyrightable.
I prefer this too. I look at things from kbin.social so I never learn just how many downvotes I’m getting.
@liztliss My personal theory is that they know we aren’t a cat like them, but they figure we think the same way they do and that most everyone shows affection and communicates like a cat. I could be wrong, but it seems to fit.
@rx8geek Useless? I put little ice cubes in their water!
@Freesoftwareenjoyer Gaming isn’t as bad as cryptomining farms and the stuff required by an AI server, man. You need to go look up some of the load on this stuff.
And you still haven’t gotten back to me on how AI improves society. People too lazy to learn to draw can say they drew something they actually didn’t? That’s not improvement.
@Freesoftwareenjoyer Anyone could create art before. Anyone could edit photos. And with practice, they could become good. Artists aren’t some special class of people born to draw, they are people who have honed their skills.
And for people who didn’t want to hone their skills, they could pay for art. You could argue that’s a change but AI is not gonna be free forever, and you’ll probably end up paying in the near future to generate that art. Which, be honest, is VERY different from “making art.” You input a direction and something else made it, which isn’t that different from just getting a friend to draw it.
Because the assholes got to “men’s rights” “men’s movement” en masse, and you’ll spend your whole life critiquing individuals and find communities full of those individuals when you see those words.