Controversial AI art piece from 2022 lacks human authorship required for registration.

  • stevexley@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That’s only with the artist’s agreement though isn’t it? Usually because you’re paying them. In this case the artist isn’t a person so can’t grant you the copyright (I think)

    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes, in practice this would be a contract with the artist deciding whether the copyright is transferred or not.

      Because by default, if you commission someone to draw something for you, they keep the copyright.

    • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah it’s called work for hire, if you’re employed to do something then you have to agree who gets the copyright before you do the work.

      AI art isn’t copyrightable because it’s the output of a mathematical equation and most sane places decided your can’t copyright math - imagine if Microsoft had been able to lock down percentages and no one else was allowed to use them, or of if every bit of electronics had to use sub-optimal voltage values because apple were sitting on a patent blocking people from using the most efficient options.

      Copyright was only really invented so the rich can block people from expressing themselves and allow them to manipulate society, it so goes back to when queen Elizabeth decided that her friend should be the only person allowed to make money from salt, a commodity we’d been using for tens of thousands of years at that point. It’s all rent seeking and attacks on the poor.