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

    • @trashgirlfriend
      link
      English
      141 year ago

      Depends on your agreement.

      I think by default if there’s no contract saying otherwise, the copyright stays with the original artist.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -11 year ago

        I would argue that the artist produces the copyright and transfers it to you. If the artist isn’t human and cant produce copyrights then it cant sell it to you. A lot of argumentation here is that we should treat AI like we treat a human artist. That is an insane line to go down because that would make any AI work effectively slavery.

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

          Hahaha, hahaha, no. That is absolutely NOT the default arrangement. Unless otherwise negotiated in the contract, the artist retains the copyright for the produced work and is free to use it as they please, including putting it in their portfolio, making further edits to the work, reusing it for other purposes, etc. The commissioner gets a copy of the finished product, but by default has few rights to use it themselves. Technically, I’ve personally infringed an artist’s copyright by cropping a work I commissioned from them to use as an icon. However, the vast majority of artists don’t typw enforce this aspect of their IP rights, due to a lack of resources and also because it would shred their reputation and kill their business.

          Explicit transfer/licensure of copyright can be negotiated, but the most artists charge an extremely hefty fee for transferring the full copyright, often double or triple the price of the work itself. Most individual commissioners don’t bother as a result, but commercial organizations looking to reuse the commissioned work must negotiate a license for the work in order to avoid a nasty infringement lawsuit.

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

            I don’t know where the “Hahaha, hahaha, no” comes in. Everything I said is supported by what you said. What part of my comment isn’t true?

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

              The way your response was worded came across as saying that the default arrangement is the commissioner receiving the copyright for the art unless otherwise specified, not the artist. My apologies if I misinterpreted your post.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If someone is doing work for you, you get the copyright. That’s how it always worked

      • @xkforce
        link
        English
        151 year ago

        This isnt always the case. Tattoos for example, are commissioned and paid for but the actual copyright often resides with the artist not the person that paid for the work.

        • ripcord
          link
          fedilink
          121 year ago

          Yes, the artist must agree that copyright transfer is part of the agreement. By default ownership is with the artist.

      • stevexley
        link
        fedilink
        11
        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)

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -11 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.