AI-generated art can't be copyrighted federal judge rules, with potential consequences for Hollywood
Source: Business Insider
A federal judge ruled that a piece of art generated by AI can't be copyrighted, a decision that could have consequences for Hollywood studios. The lawsuit, first reported by The Hollywood Reporter, was brought against the US Copyright Office by plaintiff Stephen Thaler, in an attempt to list his own AI system as the sole creator of an artwork called "A Recent Entrance to Paradise."
Thaler has previously filed other lawsuits related to AI inventions, such as listing his AI machine as an inventor in a patent application. In Friday's ruling, US District Judge Beryl Howell upheld the Copyright Office's decision to reject Thaler's copyright application.
She said humans are an "essential part of a valid copyright claim" and "human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright." "Plaintiff can point to no case in which a court has recognized copyright in a work originating with a non-human," Howell added.
The judge also cited the famous "monkey selfie" case, in which photographer David Slater was sued for claiming copyright on an image that a crested macaque took with Slater's camera. The court found that non-humans don't have any legal authority for copyright claims.
Read more: https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-generated-art-cant-by-copyrighted-federal-judge-rules-2023-8
Full headline: AI-generated art can't be copyrighted, federal judge rules, with potential consequences for Hollywood studios
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
speak easy
(12,598 posts)
marble falls
(71,936 posts)... beautiful than this schlocky picture.
jimfields33
(19,382 posts)The problem is going to be how can you tell it’s AI. Some buyers for home furnishings won’t care. But serious artist definitely will.
Backseat Driver
(4,671 posts)some AI-generated montrous-fanged fantasy.
marble falls
(71,936 posts)FredGarvin
(846 posts)The writer of the piece somehow stuck Hollywood into the story in an odd manner.
Nothing that Hollywood produces is created by AI.
In the future, perhaps.
marble falls
(71,936 posts)FredGarvin
(846 posts)Hollywood doesn't use AI to generate anything copy-written and never has.
Angleae
(4,801 posts)AI-generated scripts. AI-generated actors. If you don't have to pay actors or writers there are far more profits to be made.
brush
(61,033 posts)used instead of creatives in several disciplines. Thousands of jobs are at stake.
mopinko
(73,727 posts)if disney is smart, they’re 3 steps ahead of this. even if they used stuff they already own, they ought to issue new contracts to any creatives that would otherwise get residuals. like a lump sum proportional to whatever they have gotten in the past.
but i think if they can make that kind of deal, they can do it ethically.
i do not approve of them digitizing live ppl, unless it pays very, very well, and there are lots of rights outlined.
in the end, it’s a tool. it can be wielded by morons and con artists, but i think it will also do amazing things in the hands of truly creative ppl.
cstanleytech
(28,473 posts)human contribution to the work studios should still be able to get copyright protection for it.
FredGarvin
(846 posts)This ruling has little implication for Hollywood, but in my opinion the real fight is going to be in the music industry.
AI written lyrics and melodies are being used by that industry to great success.
Music is just code afterall
BumRushDaShow
(169,783 posts)And of course at the time the 2016 Star Wars prequel film "Rogue One" was done, per the below, it was done with "CGI" for certain characters (which was as big a thing as "AI" is now) that were original to the 1977 Star Wars film, with a lot of effort put into it -
Seeing a "digitized" Peter Cushing in a film done some 20 years after he died, was jaw-dropping.
This is what the actors are afraid of - losing control of their images, and that has been expressed by a number of them who have mentioned how the studios they worked for had them "scanned" so that their images were "digitized".
Once a "library" of digitized actors is in place, AI could be used to create all kinds of content that uses those images.
I remember when I went to see "SW: Rogue One", I was a couple seats down from a small group of girls who were probably about 8 or 9 and I would peer over at them during the film as they reacted and giggled, especially during the Tarkin scenes, thinking to myself that they had absolutely no idea that what they were looking at was a representation of an actor who had been dead for over 20 years.
I know most boomers, GenXers and older generation cohorts, are familiar with Peter Cushing given all the films he had been in over the years, but younger generations perhaps not as much outside of seeing him (and others) in some of the older classic films. So I expect it may become a battle should some other famous actors from the past have similar done with their images and then have that run through new storylines generated by "AI".
cstanleytech
(28,473 posts)though the tricky part will be for ones that are deceased.
BumRushDaShow
(169,783 posts)which is what many of the actors are also afraid of - their estates getting short-changed if there has been no explicit/contractual permission given (monetary or not) for re-use of the image.
In the case of "Rogue One", the film staff obtained permission from Cushing's estate to do what they did.
Similarly, they "sort of" had an agreement with Carrie Fisher, although in her case, she passed away a couple weeks after "Rogue One" released, and had actually filmed some (but not all) of her character's scenes for the final trilogy sequel - "The Last Jedi" - that released the following year in 2017 (so they had to partially re-do that storyline as they chose not to CGI her missing scenes).
Sadly enough, her mother Debbie Reynolds, literally passed away the day after she did, and Reynolds would be another whose image would be desirable for future "AI" stories.
PSPS
(15,322 posts)Example: An aspiring (and hungry) actor will show up for a photo shoot. They get paid for showing up and the shoot which the studio can then use in any way it wants without having to compensate the actor beyond what they paid them (that's in the release form.) The studio can take the product of the shoot, which is quite extensive, and create live-action equivalents using AI indefinitely without having to compensate the original actor (who was essentially a model upon which everything was based.) No more having to pay actors. No more residuals. But big $$$ for the studios!!11!
cstanleytech
(28,473 posts)editing lyrics or changing and rearranging the melodies.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)The copyright laws are in place to protect intellectual property.
The ruling makes it clear that, in legal terms, there is nothing of tangible value, or intellectual, in AI-generated content.
A devastating comment in the whole AI debate.
CaptainTruth
(8,202 posts)marybourg
(13,642 posts)are people, too?
mjvpi
(1,931 posts)Orrex
(67,115 posts)and they will claim that the "adjusted" work is protected by copyright because it required human artistic input.
slightlv
(7,790 posts)How would you like to spend 20-30$ for a "new" Stephen King book... only to find out as you're reading it that it was NOT written by Stephen King, but by an AI trained on Stephen King books? I don't know about you, but I'd feel cheated as hell.
Stephen King has made a good, honest living from his writing. He's been lucky because he is so talented. He puts hours and hours of his life into research, creative design, and thought with his books. But he's not going to see one penny from the AI written book that's out on stands carrying his name and his likeness on the back book jacket. While he's not hurting for money now, it would have an impact. One Stephen King, writing his well known novels, is unique; a treasure. AI's copying his style and churning out book after book? It diminishes King in ways large and small... not just monetarily. I see this as erasing human creativity and dignity.
And all those aspiring writers? The ones with all the rejections in their folders? How many of their ideas will be taken and rewritten by an AI? And never a penny crosses their desks for all their hard work.
AI is a cheat. It might be able to be used in collaborative, positive ways. But we've got too many greedy men who are willing to do whatever it takes to make a few more of their own pennies... human dignity be damned.
AI is a danger to culture everywhere, IMNSHO. It diminishes truth; denies human dignity and creativity; and gives us a never ending trove of ideas recycled through the ages with nothing new added to them.