TechTakes

1343 readers

238 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

dgerard@awful.systems

130

People are ‘blatantly stealing my work,’ AI artist complains - with notes on a similar appeal that failed hard just recently (pivot-to-ai.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by dgerard@awful.systems to c/techtakes@awful.systems

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FormallyKnown@feddit.dk 15 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

"All Allen could copyright was what he did to the image himself" - so if he trained the model himself, would that make the work copyrightable? Does that mean midjourney has the copyright of all the images created with it?

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 23 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The image gatcha does not create a new copyright. There might be a copyright in the text of a complex prompt (do you feel lucky in court?) Mere "sweat of the brow" does not generate a new copyright in the US, so e.g. retouching work on a photo does not generate a new copyright and photos of a public domain artwork do not create a new copyright.

This doesn't touch on the old copyrights of the stuff Midjourney trained on to make its computer-mediated collages. Those copyrights still exist.

Does the computer-mediated collage launder the previous copyrights? The answer is "do you feel lucky in court?"

[–] o7___o7@awful.systems 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's Tornado Cash, but for pictures of Garfield with a machete.

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 6 points 3 weeks ago

North Korea: "AUGH MY EYES"

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 20 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

so if he trained the model himself, would that make the work copyrightable?

I think if he "trained" the model on art he himself created you might have an argument.

[–] anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 weeks ago

Not in the US, there art can only be created by a human.
If it's created by an algorithm or animal supernatural being it's public domain.

Interesting facts:

when photography was invented there was a debate whether photos can be copyrighted
if you claim to have written down something revealed to you by a supernatural entity, it's public domain
the following image is public domain because it was taken by a monkey