Thats nice and all. But it has nothing to do with whether something is copyrightable or not.
Instead, something is copyrightable based on the amount of human input into the process.
And it is very clear that there can be a lot of human input into AI image generation.
Even though I will concede that going into midjourney and just typing in "Hot anime girl" isn't a lot of input and likely doesn't deserve copyright protection.
But there can be so much more to AI art than the boring case of low effort mid journey prompts.
So then yes, it is about the human input into the process. Thats what I just said.
Having large amounts of human input is the thing that matters for this stuff, which is the case for many forms of AI art.
In the same way how photoshop uses a computer, and the computer creates the art, the resulting computer generate art can still have copyright protections. (because of the large amount of human input, even though yes it used a computer)
The product of your human work is the input, not the ai generated image. You are merely commissioning some system to do the work on which you have very little actual future authorship except the commission. For art we don't grant the copyright to someone commissioning work, they have to negotiate with the artist for that.
But your artist is not human, so cannot create copyrightable works, so you can't even bargain for the right. Your copyrightable prompt just created a public domain result.
As for your comparison with photoshop, you have it backwards. The lesson you should learn is that if you fill portions of a work using something that starts authoring parts of the image, you should lose the ability to copyright those parts of the image, because you didn't author them.
Just like other works that are a mix of public domain and copyrighted elements, you can only copyright the human authored work. It's like making a comic with AI pictures - the images themselves are public domain (assuming you haven't forgotten to license the use of those works in your computer system that generates the image for you), you assembling the work into a comic is what you own the copyright to.
the characters and images designed by a machine remain public domain, no matter if you prompted all of them.
> The lesson you should learn is that if you fill portions of a work using something that starts authoring parts of the image, you should lose the ability to copyright those parts of the image, because you didn't author them.
In your opinion then, using this same line of logic, Photoshop is not protected.
The courts disagree with you though.
Using your line of logic, you could say that the computer is authoring the work using Photoshop.
It is the computer printing out the picture using bits and bytes. That's not a human! That a computer program named photoshop!
Then follow the exact line of logic from there.
> characters and images designed by a machine remain public domain,
We know this to be false though, because a character created by Photoshop is done on a computer though.
Therefore, it is clear that yes a machine can be used in the process, unless you are going to claim that Photoshop is not protected because it is run on a computer.
I used words very carefully. It depends on the level of human authorship.
If you use a tool to correct some pixels thats directed by a human closely, no thats not a problem.
If you remove large parts of the image with the ai erase fill, then you've given up authorship of those parts of the image. You could then go in and author changes to the work that you could further add to your copyright. But you would never change the copyright status of the stuff authored by a machine.
You're using 'Photoshop' on a naive level without looking at the most important element - how much authorship is the human having. You can basically 'hand paint' a picture in photoshop, or you can use the ai tools and have almost no authorship.
Then I am happy to use your word if that clarifies things.
Just replace everything that I said about "human input" with "human authorship".
And my point is that there are many things that a human can do using AI art that have large amounts of "human authorship" beyond just the boring case of prompting midjourney with a dumb prompt.
> It depends on the level of human authorship.
Oh hey! Yes that is exactly my point.
That point being that just like Photoshop images are copyrightable, because there is human authorship, so can AI art, if there is human authorship.
Glad you agree.
> thats directed by a human closely
Ok! You agree with me then! That's my point!
My point is that AI art can be directed by a human closely and that there is so much more than can be done than a simple prompt into mid journey.
You agree with my central point.
> If you remove large parts of the image with the ai erase fill, then you've given up authorship
Not if you "direct it closely"! Then it's protected.
> how much authorship is the human having
That's is exactly what I am talking about though, that I have said multiple times.
That there are lots of things that a human can do, related to AI art that are directed closely, and that these things are authorship.
But I am glad that you agree with me that if it is directed closely then it is protected, which was my point and that you can do this with AI.
Its clear from this post that you aren't at all here in good faith, just to be glib and purposely misconstrue other people's words. good luck with life.
You can "hand paint" in Photoshop, but you can also assemble collages composed of bits and pieces of other copyrighted works and create a result that is still copyrightable. Why is the latter currently legal in your opinion?
if the things you're collaging can't be copyrighted because they lack human authorship, you can only copyright the arrangement, not the things you're arranging.
If they have human authorship, its the original human artist's work you're collaging and now you're creating an unauthorized derivative work violating many copyrights.
If you do not license the "bits and pieces" then the courts will find you in violation of their copyrights. Pretending AI is different is bizarre out-of-touch "but I'm so special" solipsism.
I believe you are wrong there. Transformative art requires no licensing as long as it falls under fair use.
I can quote a book in my article without licensing the quote from the author. I can clip eyebrows off of copyrighted magazine portraits and assemble them into a eyebrow version of some famous art piece and never have to license a thing. I can take screenshots of copyrighted YouTube videos and assemble a "shirts of YouTubers" that I lasso tool'd and collaged together and create an entirely new copyrighted work without having to license a thing. I can take a photo of a street which contains an art gallery and copyrighted art can appear in my photo without having to license anything from the artist. Fair use would cover taking 1 out of 1 million pixels and assembling it into a new image if a human were to perform that action.
Instead, something is copyrightable based on the amount of human input into the process.
And it is very clear that there can be a lot of human input into AI image generation.
Even though I will concede that going into midjourney and just typing in "Hot anime girl" isn't a lot of input and likely doesn't deserve copyright protection.
But there can be so much more to AI art than the boring case of low effort mid journey prompts.