AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…

[Umbran]

You all are the ones making untrue claims.

Um... you really want to make that play?

The anti-AI crowd is basically claiming that AI is nothing but google image search repackaged to make it look like its creating the images itself, like some high tech version of Gilderoy Lockhart.

You are stunningly incorrect. I most distinctly have NOT said that it was nothing but a repackaged image search.

As I believe I previously noted in at least one of these threads - as a grad student I did research in using generative AI to simulate high-energy particle physics events, for tuning detectors. I am well aware, more aware than most, of what it is and what it isn't. Thanks much.

Do yo want to continue incorrectly making broad statements, or do you want to address specific points?

Or failing that you claim that human made images and stories have some intangible quality that goes beyond the ones and zeroes that make up the file. And at that point you're just straight up positing the existence of magic

If the humans didn't have something the AIs didn't, the AI wouldn't have to be trained on things created by humans. It isn't magic, but it has value.

 

[Guest 85555]

Also, if its not art, and it can't copy the alleged intangible aspects of human art because it's just a machine, then being a machine it's not under the purview of copyright law anyway. If you don't want someone to build a machine based on your idea you have to patent it, not copyright it.

Serious question. People keep saying this but do we know it is true? I am sure @Snarf Zagyg could weigh in on this one. I don’t think filing copyright makes any request about the author being human. A few years ago two guys were autogenerating melodies and chord combinations using some kind of algorithm and trying to copyright all the possible combinations. Not sure where that went legally and I could have details wrong but curious if that ever ended up in court as it it is kind of a premonition of what we are discussing. Apologies if this already came up and was addressed

 

[Scribe]

Ok, fine, but at the very least it can either be corporate trash right away or only become corporate trash after 15 years of en****ification. And if this crowd gets their way it's going to go the corporate-trash-immediately route

So your argument is 'let them steal as much as they need to, so that we can get a few good years of value out of the exploitation of artists, while we work towards making their profession essentially obsolete' ?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Serious question. People keep saying this but do we know it is true? I am sure @Snarf Zagyg could weigh in on this one. I don’t think filing copyright makes any request about the author being human. A few years ago two guys were autogenerating melodies and chord combinations using some kind of algorithm and trying to copyright all the possible combinations. Not sure where that went legally and I could have details wrong but curious if that ever ended up in court as it it is kind of a premonition of what we are discussing. Apologies if this already came up and was addressed

Well, it's complicated. As people like to say, you should try and hire a one-armed attorney, so they won't say, "On the other hand ...."

What most people are thinking of is cases like Naruto v. Slater, 888 F. 3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018), aka the "monkey selfie case." In that case, the Ninth Circuit (the federal appellate court for the western states) had to determine if Naruto, a seven-year old crested macaque, could bring a copyright claim.

The Court held that "this monkey — and all animals, since they are not human — lacks statutory standing under the Copyright Act. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court." Id. at 420.

Cases like this stand for the broad proposition that non-humans would lack the ability to enforce a copyright claim. There is analysis of the language on 425-26.

More recently, in Thaler v. Perlmutter, Case No. 22-1564 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2023), a District Court held that "United States copyright law protects only works of human creation." In doing so, the District Court sided with the copyright office, and against the copyright applicant, who was trying to copyright images created by the AI "Creativity machine."

At this point, I would say that the general consensus is that the answer is no, you cannot copyright things created without human authorship. Of course, there are three important things to remember-

1. There is no bright-line test about how much human involvement is needed. A human artist can use "AI tools" and create an image and copyright it. So the only real dividing line right now is that you can't just have the AI be the author of the work.

2. This is (to date) a statutory issue based upon how the law is written; it's always possible to change the law. (Maybe- it's also possible for courts to reinterpret the Constitution's grant within Art. I).

3. As we all know, settled law can always become ... unsettled.


Nevertheless, the issues with copyright are why large firms that depend on copyright are, to date, avoiding going "full AI." For example, it is well-known that a lot of Hollywood players are hesitant to use "too much AI" not just because of the hypocrisy (they might want to go after the AI companies) but also because they fear adverse court decisions might weaken their copyright claims in the future if (for example) they create shows wholly based on AI scripts.

(Please note that I am providing a very brief overview of a complicated situation; and, as always, you get what you pay for!)

 

[Guest 85555]

Well, it's complicated. As people like to say, you should try and hire a one-armed attorney, so they won't say, "On the other hand ...."

What most people are thinking of is cases like Naruto v. Slater, 888 F. 3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018), aka the "monkey selfie case." In that case, the Ninth Circuit (the federal appellate court for the western states) had to determine if Naruto, a seven-year old crested macaque, could bring a copyright claim.

The Court held that "this monkey — and all animals, since they are not human — lacks statutory standing under the Copyright Act. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court." Id. at 420.

Cases like this stand for the broad proposition that non-humans would lack the ability to enforce a copyright claim. There is analysis of the language on 425-26.

More recently, in Thaler v. Perlmutter, Case No. 22-1564 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2023), a District Court held that "United States copyright law protects only works of human creation." In doing so, the District Court sided with the copyright office, and against the copyright applicant, who was trying to copyright images created by the AI "Creativity machine."

At this point, I would say that the general consensus is that the answer is no, you cannot copyright things created without human authorship. Of course, there are three important things to remember-

1. There is no bright-line test about how much human involvement is needed. A human artist can use "AI tools" and create an image and copyright it. So the only real dividing line right now is that you can't just have the AI be the author of the work.

2. This is (to date) a statutory issue based upon how the law is written; it's always possible to change the law. (Maybe- it's also possible for courts to reinterpret the Constitution's grant within Art. I).

3. As we all know, settled law can always become ... unsettled.


Nevertheless, the issues with copyright are why large firms that depend on copyright are, to date, avoiding going "full AI." For example, it is well-known that a lot of Hollywood players are hesitant to use "too much AI" not just because of the hypocrisy (they might want to go after the AI companies) but also because they fear adverse court decisions might weaken their copyright claims in the future if (for example) they create shows wholly based on AI scripts.

(Please note that I am providing a very brief overview of a complicated situation; and, as always, you get what you pay for!)

Thanks Snarf, that is a very helpful breakdown. Do you happen to know if there was any case involving those guys using an algorithm to generate melodies and chords (wish I could remember the details but if I recall they were doing it as a kind of crazy way of protesting all the musical copyright cases a few years ago and I think their idea was create the possibilities, copyright them, but don't enforce those copyrights---but could be way off here). So it was humans using an algorithm to create something they would themselves file I believe (and I think the algorithm was just generating every possible combination under the sun)

 

[Ryujin]

Thanks Snarf, that is a very helpful breakdown. Do you happen to know if there was any case involving those guys using an algorithm to generate melodies and chords (wish I could remember the details but if I recall they were doing it as a kind of crazy way of protesting all the musical copyright cases a few years ago and I think their idea was create the possibilities, copyright them, but don't enforce those copyrights---but could be way off here). So it was humans using an algorithm to create something they would themselves file I believe (and I think the algorithm was just generating every possible combination under the sun)

I vaguely remember a case that involved a ruling stating there were only so many possible chord progressions, or the like, and that you couldn't make blanket claims on that basis. Trying to find it, but failing at the moment.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Thanks Snarf, that is a very helpful breakdown. Do you happen to know if there was any case involving those guys using an algorithm to generate melodies and chords (wish I could remember the details but if I recall they were doing it as a kind of crazy way of protesting all the musical copyright cases a few years ago and I think their idea was create the possibilities, copyright them, but don't enforce those copyrights---but could be way off here). So it was humans using an algorithm to create something they would themselves file I believe (and I think the algorithm was just generating every possible combination under the sun)

Chord progressions in and of themselves are not copyrightable.

 

[Guest 85555]

I vaguely remember a case that involved a ruling stating there were only so many possible chord progressions, or the like, and that you couldn't make blanket claims on that basis. Trying to find it, but failing at the moment.

They weren’t copywriting chord progressions but melody lines and chord progressions together. My understanding is you are right on chord progressions. At least that is what I have always been told.

 

[Guest 85555]

Chord progressions in and of themselves are not copyrightable.

they were chords and melody together. Possible it was just melody but I seem to remember they were generating back up chords for the harmonies

 

[Guest 85555]

@Snarf Zagyg. Found it, looks like it was just melodies