Post AdV4IP75Byz36d6VRw by avis_jay@squawk.social
(DIR) More posts by avis_jay@squawk.social
(DIR) Post #AdV0v2QP56M6DTJ8qm by avis_jay@squawk.social
2024-01-03T14:00:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
#AIArtDiscussion #AIArtI just had a thought about the whole topic. Some people say AI Art is Art, because the "Artist" is providing the prompt. If the AI is really creating Art, on an abstract level it's not different from commissioning an artist. They create the art, based on your descriptions. In German Law (I don't know about other countries), there is a difference between the Creator and the Copyright Holder. The creator automatically has the copyright, but he can sign it off to another person. That signing off is a legal process. But an AI isn't a person. It can't enter into a contract. So the commissioner can't acquire the copyright from it. But the AI itself can't hold a copyright, as it isn't a person. So all AI Art should be copyright free.
(DIR) Post #AdV0v3K3kAsJ05LabI by wauz@mastodon.bayern
2024-01-04T10:20:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@avis_jayThere's a little extra information: in some situations, in case the creator is an employee, the copyright is automatically set to the employer in Germany. So a journalist has no control over the texts created. And so on...
(DIR) Post #AdV2BMPwcJL2oGRLJg by avis_jay@squawk.social
2024-01-04T10:35:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wauz But that's written down in their contract.
(DIR) Post #AdV3YM4CBfHcKunO4m by wauz@mastodon.bayern
2024-01-04T10:50:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@avis_jayNo. That's the legal standard. Keyword is "Erfüllungsgehilfe". You need it in the contract, that it should be otherwise.
(DIR) Post #AdV4IP75Byz36d6VRw by avis_jay@squawk.social
2024-01-04T10:58:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wauz But you aren't paying the AI, or offering them some other type of compensation. So they aren't your employee.
(DIR) Post #AdV51IkJiCyeODrdTs by wauz@mastodon.bayern
2024-01-04T11:06:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@avis_jayThe question is: who is 'creator'? That one, who writes the prompt, or that one, who owns the generating software?I don't offer here an answer. I just wanted to remark, that the German legal situation is more complicated, as you stated it.
(DIR) Post #AdV9sdQRxLCHgtG4rg by avis_jay@squawk.social
2024-01-04T12:01:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wauz In dem Fall ist eine große Frage: Stellt ein Prompt ein Werk mit ausreichender Schöpfungshöhe dar, um einen Urheberrechtlichen Schutz zu verdienen. Und sowohl die Deutschen, als auch die Amerikanischen Gerichte habe entschieden, dass dies nicht der Fall ist.
(DIR) Post #AdVABZBTwwnK2RHhWi by avis_jay@squawk.social
2024-01-04T12:04:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wauz In that case, the big question is: Does writing a prompt need a high enough level of creativity, to deserve protection under copyright law. German and us court's independently decided that's not the case.
(DIR) Post #AdVAVzBF0SpwSIuNuq by wauz@mastodon.bayern
2024-01-04T12:08:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@avis_jayThat could lead to the idea, that AI-generated 'art' cannot be copyrighted. Maybe this is a way out...
(DIR) Post #AdVDinY7rR2I0gPhrc by avis_jay@squawk.social
2024-01-04T12:44:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wauz Yep. That's pretty much my argument. As the input of the user is too little. The AI should get the copyright. But it's not a person. So it can't hold the copyright. So it should be copyright free.
(DIR) Post #AdVGElJxshSAH29wK8 by wauz@mastodon.bayern
2024-01-04T13:12:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@avis_jayWell, copyright itself can be held by every 'legal person'. But the existence of copyright is based either the existence of 'creation' (creative work) and the existence of a creator, which has to be at least one natural person. For that, the copyright vanishes 70 years after death of creator (Germany).Also is the problem, that AI is most probable trained on copyrighted matter. So it could be read as a copyright infringement itself.I think, the criterion of 'creation' is the strongest. Any output is not creative work in the way it is needed for causing a copyright.