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

  • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    And yet that effort to make something from AI is trivial compared to the effort required to become a professional artist or photographer. If I commission art from a human, I’m curating and fine-tuning the output by browsing the artist’s gallery, deciding which artist to commission based on their art style, deciding on a prompt to give the artist, and revising the output by adjusting my prompt based on the artist’s preliminary sketch. Yet despite all that effort, I don’t get the copyright for the completed artwork, because I didn’t make it.

    I wholeheartedly and completely reject the notion that human creativity has any more than de minimis influence on AI art. It’s no more a tool than an actual live artist is a tool.

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

      I disagree on the notion that a person that prompted the AI didn’t „make“ the picture. This is the same argument as with digital art, you aren‘t making it, you are simply moving your pen on a screen to create lines and fillings to impress an image. (Also, when it was becoming popular a lot of artists complained that is wasn’t „real art“). To be fair, what someone thinks is art is quite subjective (many people scoff at these random blocks standing around in cities like statues) so it’ll ultimately be up to the lawmakers (that mark my word will lobby to eternity for this to exist) to decide. I respect your opinion, but don’t agree with it. It’s not like you or I can’t enjoy something just because someone else doesn’t.

      • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s literally not the same as digital art and I find the comparison offensive. One is a human directly putting pixels on the screen, the other is output from a program that processed millions of pieces of actual artwork into the creative equivalent of pink slime.

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

      I disagree on the notion that a person that prompted the AI didn’t „make“ the picture. This is the same argument as with digital art, you aren‘t making it, you are simply moving your pen on a screen to create lines and fillings to impress an image. (Also, when it was becoming popular a lot of artists complained that is wasn’t „real art“). To be fair, what someone thinks is art is quite subjective (many people scoff at these random blocks standing around in cities like statues) so it’ll ultimately be up to the lawmakers (that mark my word will lobby to eternity for this to exist) to decide. I respect your opinion, but don’t agree with it. It’s not like you or I can’t enjoy something just because someone else doesn’t.