Conversation

Notices

1. Ars Technica (arstechnica@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 07-Oct-2024 20:01:12 JST Ars Technica

   Artist appeals copyright denial for prize-winning AI-generated work

   AI art may create a whole new world of copyright trolling, expert warns.

   https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/artist-appeals-copyright-denial-for-prize-winning-ai-generated-work/?utm_brand=arstechnica&utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=social

   • .vad//hakara🧭 (vadhakara@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 07-Oct-2024 20:16:48 JST .vad//hakara🧭

     in reply to

     @arstechnica "Allen claims that the denial of copyright for his work has inspired confusion about who owns rights to not just Midjourney-generated art but all AI art"
     Nobody owns the rights to any AI art, it is as free as dirt on your shoes, and exactly as valuable.

   • Bandersnatch (bandersnatch@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 07-Oct-2024 20:24:01 JST Bandersnatch

     in reply to

     @arstechnica AI art isn't copyrightable at all.

   • DP0 (dp0@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 07-Oct-2024 21:15:20 JST DP0

     in reply to

     @arstechnica I am not familiar with Midjourney, but normally using the same prompt will never result in the same image. Like all procedural generators, AI uses seeds in the creation process, which happens to be random numbers. Even when using the same prompt next time, the seed will be different.

     Therefore, the prompt also can not be protected as it is its combination with a random number (or multiple random numbers), which determines which trained information the AI will finally use.

   • Chris 🦑 (sturmsucht@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 08-Oct-2024 18:55:46 JST Chris 🦑

     in reply to

     @arstechnica Naming them "artist" is an insult within. They did just nothing more than a more or less complex search query to a graphical randomizer.