Technology

37693 readers

315 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Opinion: The Copyright Office is making a mistake on AI-generated art (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've generally been against giving AI works copyright, but this article presented what I felt were compelling arguments for why I might be wrong. What do you think?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The argument relies a lot on an analogy to photographers, which misunderstands the nature of photography. A photographer does not give their camera prompts and then evaluate the output.

A better analogy would be giving your camera to a passerby and asking them to take your photo, with prompts about what you want in the background, lighting, etc. No matter how detailed your instructions, you won't have a copyright on the photo.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This AI ruling is also actually completely in-line with existing precedent from the photography world.

The US Copyright Office has previously ruled that a photograph taken by a non-human (in this case, a monkey) is not copyrightable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

If he had deliberately caused the monkey to take that photo, he might have owned the copyright.

If you pay a photographer to take photos at your wedding, you own the copyright for those photos - not the photographer.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Unless it is explicity specified in a contract, no you wouldn't. Most people don't.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unless you specifically pay for the rights transfer (and it's not cheap), the photographer owns the copyright.

https://www.rocketlawyer.com/business-and-contracts/intellectual-property/copyrights/legal-guide/wedding-photos-does-your-photographer-legally-own-them

Under federal law, if there is no agreement to the contrary, your wedding photographer, or any photographer for that matter, owns the pictures that they take. This means that they have the sole right to copy and distribute the photos, including potentially the right to sell the photos, to publish the photos in any form, and to reproduce the photos either electronically or in a printed hardcopy version. And even more importantly, copyrighted material cannot be reproduced or copied without permission from the photographer.

...

Generally, photographers do not like to offer their services to clients through a Work for Hire Agreement. This may be partly related to their desire to require clients to purchase prints and books directly from them. Many photographers, however, do not want to completely relinquish their rights because they may be trying to build or protect their reputation.

Granted, this a US take and may vary by country...

https://www.thecoffeetablebook.com.au/what-do-a-bride-and-groom-need-to-know-about-copyright-when-booking-a-wedding-photographer/

If you are a couple getting married in Australia, the copyright law automatically assigns copyright to you and not the photographer. However, most professional photographers will have their clients sign a contract that reassigns the copyright to the photographer. Now let’s be very clear, this is not the photographer being shady or deceptive in anyway. It’s simply to protect their work, the photographs in this case, that they created.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Generally, photographers do not like to offer their services to clients through a Work for Hire Agreement

If I was getting married, I'd find one that will do a work for hire agreement. It's my wedding, I want to own the photos. Nobody else should be profiting off them (aside from what I paid them to take the photos).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

You probably actually wouldn't when it's 5 times more expensive.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A better analogy would be giving your camera to a passerby and asking them to take your photo, with prompts about what you want in the background, lighting, etc. No matter how detailed your instructions, you won’t have a copyright on the photo.

I like this analogy a lot.

"Prompts" are actually used a lot in creative circles, whether for art or writing. But no matter how specific you are when you write a prompt for, say, r/WritingPrompts (and some of them are incredibly specific due to posters literally having an idea and hoping someone else will write it for them), the resulting story will never be copyrighted to you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What if you’re paying the writers on a work for hire basis?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The writing is still copyrighted to the writers, not to you, unless the contract states otherwise. Same as with the wedding photo example described in other comments.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

In a work for hire contract, the contract explicitly states that the employer gets the copyright.

You can think of the compensation as being partly from employment, and partly from the sale of any copyright.