• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    81 year ago

    Not in the copyright sense.

    Yes, there were millions of people’s work that was in the training data that was used to make whatever AI program created those AI images, but (at least right now) that isn’t considered for legal ownership.

    The US Copyright Office is taking the stance that there must be human effort that can be seen/pointed to in the final product directly in order to count as an “Author”.

    Think about that guy with the monkey taking a photo, and how that got into the public domain. Just because the company selling the camera “created the camera used to take the photo” (made the AI model) or because someone using the camera “set their own settings for the photo to be its best quality” (typed in a proper prompt for the model) doesn’t mean that either party “owns” that image.

    That whole paradigm could maybe change if/when AI LLM programs get seriously regulated, but even so, I personally don’t think that changes the chain of ownership, nor should it.

    • @afraid_of_zombies
      link
      English
      31 year ago

      So it’s the same as when the film industry got started?

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
      link
      English
      11 year ago

      The element of human creativity derives from the Constitution.

      “To promote art the author has the exclusive right.” Something like that.