Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Further reading seems to indicate human control is pivotal in the equation. A human can be granted copyright for created works but the creative part must be human and not machine.

Just like you don't grant copyright on a PDF to Adobe Photoshop... you grant it to the human who guided the program. Photoshop is a tool and the human is the creator.

https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/16/ai_art_copyright_usco...

> "For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the 'traditional elements of authorship' are determined and executed by the technology – not the human user.

> "Instead, these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist – they identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented in its output."

> "The USCO will consider content created using AI if a human author has crafted something beyond the machine's direct output. A digital artwork that was formed from a prompt, and then edited further using Photoshop, for example, is more likely to be accepted by the office. The initial image created using AI would not be copyrightable, but the final product produced by the artist might be."




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: