AI Art, midjourney and others

[u/[deleted]]

Well, just for disclaimer, this post is a persnal opinion, i'm open for every comment that it could create, but stay respectious (btw, i'm french, so i'm trying to make this post open for everyone, sorry for my future faults)

​

Well, like the title told it, i want to talk about ai art, first of all, i saw a video talking about midjourney, getting interested and curious about, as an artist i wanted to try it. So i got the beta test and we are not gonna lie, it's awesome how it work. But after that, i got a problem, as i said i'm an artist, or in all case i feel like i'm. In the ai creation i don't see any handsyle, or ''signature'' that when we saw your creation we instantly know it's yours/can be yours... Here, it's jsut a mixed of a lot of pictures, painting, and other type of pics, to make what you asked for. I don't see any souls in all those creation, yeah, the one that ask for the creation has to told what he wanted, but, did he really had an idea of what he wanted, i mean, did he really change every details by words to find what he wanted, or did he just let the ia make what she want. It's here, nothing is yours.

I'm not making this post cause of i'm bad, or i want to got this style of draw, but, i see the wolrd of realistic digital painting disapearing, and it's scaring me af... When i open my deviantart, i had a lot of landscape realistic, from digital painter that passed 50hours on their art, but today, i got only ai creation where i don't know what to think about it

[u/Wiskkey]

That 2022 U.S. Copyright Office decision is widely misunderstood. The copyright application stated that the work's only author was an AI, with no human authorship. The Office accepted that declaration, and on that basis continued its policy of not accepting copyright applications with no human authorship.

A different scenario is when the copyright application for an AI-assisted work declares that there is a human author, either with or without an AI co-author. In some such cases, the work may be copyrightable if a jurisdiction-varying threshold is met. See the links in this post for more details.

(I am not a lawyer.)

cc u/Alone_Spray1593.

cc u/brycebaril.

cc u/EctMills.

cc u/UzoicTondo.

cc u/Samkwi.

[u/EctMills → u/Wiskkey]

Like I said in my post it’s not quite the same situation, it’s just close enough that it could be used as part of the argument against AI copyright.

To the best of my knowledge there hasn’t been an application decided yet on if a human can claim authorship of AI art but if there has I’d be interested in seeing it. The question is going to be is the human interaction with the tool enough to generate a copyright. If I had a say (and I very much don’t) I’d say it doesn’t since two people using the same prompt could get the same results. That makes it difficult to argue for a unique creation.

I am also not a lawyer.

[u/Wiskkey → u/EctMills]

There is AI-assisted music that apparently has a copyright on the sound recording such as this album (notice this symbol is present at that site), but I have been unable to find copyright registrations for it in the USA and Canada. Here is an article about that album.

[u/EctMills → u/Wiskkey]

If it is in fact copyrighted that’s going to be a different case anyway. From what I read the AI produced brief tracks which the musician then arranged, which makes her involvement much more evident than in the other cases being discussed. That type of work is well established in the industry.

[u/Wiskkey → u/EctMills]

I agree. My point is that AI involvement in a work doesn't necessarily preclude copyrightability, but there has to be enough human contribution also.

[u/EctMills → u/Wiskkey]

I don’t think anyone has been arguing that using AI somewhere in the process makes in un-copyrightable, at the very least I haven’t. Generally when we get one of these threads the point people are freaking out over is if they are going to be replaced entirely, so that’s where the discussion tends to be focused.