Why This Award-Winning Piece of AI Art Can’t Be Copyrighted

Allowing people to copyright A.I generated art could lead to huge issues where someone could just churn out generated images like no tomorrow and throw out copyright claims left and right. It could even lead to situation where you can't really create any art because it's probably something that's already been generated by someone or close to it.

Making AI art not copyrightable is probably the best reasonable alternative that we could hope for.

Companies are always looking to cut costs and getting some computer algorithm to churn out endless art without having to pay an artist would be a corporate holy grail. Except that if that artwork then can't be copyrighted and thus monetized (or not as easily monetized), then it ruined or at least lessens their push to replace all their workers with AI.

The real solution is to abolish copyright

This is a very delicate and complicated matter, part of me thinks that making AI works non copyrightable would incentivize human art

This will change the first time a big pharma pill designed by AI hits the market.

I just want to point out that the description beneath the image in the article is hilarious.

I would agree. Right up until the guy pulled it into Photoshop to make tweaks, adjustments, and corrections.

We give copyright for much less.

The artwork, Théâtre D’opéra Spatial, was created by Matthew Allen and came first in last year's Colorado State Fair.

No. No he didn't create it. He put words into a black box.

Yes, US copyright law requires human involvement to grant authorship. AI generated works are not eligible for copyright and it's unlikely to change unless copyright legislation goes through to yet further restrict copyright.

Off topic but anyone know if you can download this art in high-res from somewhere?

Cool so ai art created from copyright input has no copyright cuz the input isn't considered part of the copyright.

Nothing that judicial, legislative, and regulatory capture can't turn around. Just need enough money and time.

Funny situation indeed. Thoughts:

1. Copyright is particularly artificial and openly amenable to change to suit the needs of the economy and creators it applies to. So treating this as open ended is probably necessary.
2. Copyright has for a long time happily provided varying degrees of protection by recognising that one may hold copyright over a work but only over a “thin” or relatively minor aspect of the work.
3. While there seems to be broader factors involved here regarding the power and market dynamics afforded artists and corporations should AI copyright be protected, there also seems to be plenty of scope to recognise that actual original work can be behind an AI work, however “thin” and distinct from the ordinary categories (eg Music, Literature etc) it may be. Indeed I would question how much the judges involved actually understand this enough.
4. Does anyone know how this policy is tracking with or affected by policies in whether the AI engines themselves are infringing copyright?

While my thinking is in line with what @TheLobotomist@lemmy.world and @NateNate60@lemmy.ml have already said, why can't "AI artists" just do what everybody in a profit-seeking situation does and just lie about it? "No your honor, our studies have shown cigarette smoking is not hazardous to your health," "yes, your honor, OxyContin is completely safe," or in this case "yes, your honor, I created this illustration." If your conscience is really bothering you, you could claim it was AI-assisted. I wouldn't think there'd be a "Big Eyes" prove-you-painted-that courtroom case. Am I wrong?

Good.

Looks like shit

Then auto-tuned, sample-ridden, garbage "music" should follow the same rules. The "artist" that "made" those songs shouldn't have any rights to the material as they didn't make anything. They had a computer rework their voice, who's words are often someone else's, with music that was also made by someone else.

Someone made the reference images generative AI used to make the end result image just like someone made the music that Lil' NoTalent69420 copied used for their song. Lil' NoTalent69420 manipulated it as much or even less than the individuals making AI art. It's pretty frustrating.