AI have no rights. Your AI creations are right-less. They belong in the public domain. If not, they are properties of the peoples whose art you stole to make the AI.
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
You are asking a fundamentally different question than I am. I am not asking 'Is it art?', I am asking 'Is it copyrightable?'.
It could be art, but that doesn't mean it's copyrightable. You are all over the map with you analysis, drawing comparisons and JAQing off out of smoke and spite. It's not about the exploitation, it is about the process of creation. The process for making hexadecimal colors and mixing paint colors are likely both patented processes within their fields, if sold as a product (and to be sure, this is not only likely it is certain). That said, the end product of said creation (painted wall) could or could not be copy written. That said, if you happen to create Feldspar BlueTM through a completely different process then it is not the same product or patent. This is exact same process as the polygon tool.
This is where the differences appear. An LIM assisted image cannot exist without previously existing artistic material, copywritten or not. And despite this, the only part of the 'patented' process that is allowed is the LIM process itself, not the creation of the original artwork, even though it is 'essential' to the process, in a way that just painting it from memory is not (because of possibilities of convergent design).
This is a fundamental disconnect in the logic here. It is more like being able to directly plagiarize someone's data without attribution, even if you come to a different conclusion than them. I would even be more fine with this process if the scrapings that the LIM uses have to attributed to the original creators in the data. As it is now, the process as it exists constitutes copyright piracy.
fair enough.
The thing that makes an idea copyrightable is whether it is a original idea put to use. How the idea came to be "in use" is not a question that copyright asks. Originality is only ever a combination of old ideas in a new way. All ideas are derivative. No idea is created in a vacuum.
When does using one person's data to create your own data become plagiarism? If one were to open a essay with the same first 3 words as another writer on the same subject but come to a completely contrary conclusion did they plagiarize them? Most AI images sample millions of images most of which are not copywrite. Nobody is "directly plagiarize someone's data," it is being referenced.
Even then this legal case was about an image generated by AI being republished (emphasis on re) by someone who didn't generate it. There is only one image involved in the case. The ruling is simply saying you cant steal images even if they are made by an AI. Either all original images that are put to use are copyrightable or none of them are.
If the copyright infringer was the AI generator this would be a different debate.
Using someone else's collected data in academia without attribution is 100% plagiarism. Using 1000 peoples combined data is still 100% plagiarism, if it is left uncited in academia. That is why it is bullshit. Only in art are you allowed to not cite your sources and this is an extremely abusive method of doing that.
I agree that no art IS made in a vacuum but all art except LIM art COULD be made in a vacuum. That is the fundamental processual difference.
The copyright infringer is the LIM generator (it is not AI stop falling for marketing bullshit), but the courts continue to refuse to acknowledge that, even if they do not give copyright to the LIM piece.
Correct, it is either all or none, and if it is all, then the LIM generator is in copyright infringement.