Controversial AI art piece from 2022 lacks human authorship required for registration.

    • Fisk400@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Then absolutely go ahead. That isn’t what the guy in the post did tough.

    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t see why you wouldn’t be able to keep copyright then. Everything involved would have been owned by you.

      That is a big difference to how other generative models work though, which do use other people’s work.

      • drewdarko@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because you would have to prove that the AI only learned from your work and it’s my understanding that there is no way to track what is used as learning material or even have an AI unlearn something.

        • Fisk400@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The people that is stealing art designed their algorithm to not contain proof that they stole art. If they are legally required to prove what training data they used in order to get a copyright then they will design the AI around that. That would immediately disqualify most of the current AIs because they have all been fed stolen art but I am sure they have the tech and capital to start over. And you know, Fuck em.