sizes: (navigator.userAgent.match(/iPhone|android|iPod/i)) ? [[300, 250], [320, 460], [320, 480], [320, 50], [300, 100], [320, 100]] : [[300, 250], [320, 460], [320, 480], [320, 50], [300, 100], [320, 100], [635, 90]]
placementId: navigator.userAgent.match(/iPhone|android|iPod/i) ? ‘22617692’: ‘22617693’
artificial intelligence This has revolutionized the creative processes for both texts and images. However, it also raised a controversial issue: the authorship of photographs created with these systems. Who should be considered the creator of such material? The AI or the person who gave it the instructions to get that result?
Copyright Office Mr. state joined was one of the first to contribute to this contentious controversy, noting that she believes AI-generated text images are not human-made. The organization provided a “style guide” that clarifies that a photograph based solely on a description cannot be considered human authorship.
Disputes over the authorship of AI-generated images
In addition to the above, the office also clarified its position by comparing the creative process through AI with “instruction for the artist to order”. “An artist can modify material originally created with AI technology to the extent that the modifications comply with standard copyright protection.”the agency said, comparing the case specifically to a magazine editor who hired a photographer.
From what has been said, it is clear that if there is a work “visible” or tangible enough to understand that the work in question is different from the original image created by AI, authorship can be granted to a person. However, it will be quite difficult to determine when a work is considered “new” after appropriate changes have been made to it.
Legal vacuum that needs to be intervened
The US Copyright Office notes that each of the cases where platforms such as DALL-E And middle of the road they will have their own individual treatment and study.
In the case of works containing material created AIThe Board will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of “the author’s own original thought concept, to which [el autor] given a visible shape. The answer will depend on the circumstances, in particular how the AI tool works and how it was used to create the final work.”specify the entity.
Undoubtedly, such a situation AI And Copyright This is very reminiscent of what happened to the selfie photo that the monkey took with a human camera. David Slater was put on trial for PETA for it was believed that the animal should benefit from being the one who imprinted the image. judges USA they mentioned that copyright protection could not apply to the monkey.
Similarly, these rights may not apply to image generators, even if we know the companies behind them. Also, it’s important to remember that the “monkey selfie” deal was that Slater will donate 25% of the proceeds from the image to organizations “dedicated to protecting the welfare or habitat” of the animal, so that something similar could happen to DALL-E or middle of the road.
We recommend you METADATA, an RPP technology podcast. News, analytics, reviews, recommendations and everything you need to know about the tech world.
I am Ben Stock, a passionate and experienced digital journalist working in the news industry. At the Buna Times, I write articles covering technology developments and related topics. I strive to provide reliable information that my readers can trust. My research skills are top-notch, as well as my ability to craft engaging stories on timely topics with clarity and accuracy.