Posts

EDIT 2: I’m guessing it might have something to do with my hidden tag derpibooru import (since I already use that as my “mane main” site for ID organization and to prevent dupe saving/overlap.

@Zealousmagician
As for pure prompting, under the current jurisdiction we’re in, the copyright belongs to, and the prompter should dully attribute to, every single artist whose work was used in the training of the model(s) they’re using, and any financial gain made from the image distributed among them, or to a neutral fund for unknown artists whose work the model was trained on.

Which is stupid.

the word artist is special because it’s tied to the rules. […] in our rules under the EU Copyright Directive (and to some extent the DMCA), being an artist implies they have copyrightable works. So we have to handle their reports fairly and responsibly to protect the site, including the possibility of takedowns—which I’d really like to avoid. So, sorry for repeating myself, I’d really like to avoid us using that word in any way that doesn’t match how it’s used in the rules.

In some cases, the redaction role of the human user will be reduced to that of selecting or refusing ready-made output generated by the AI system. This raises an interesting question from a copyright perspective. Clearly, the mere act of selecting may be one of many factors contributing to a finding of originality. But what if selecting one AI output from several is the only choice left to the user? Like many other questions raised by AI, this is not a novel issue.
In the past, the emergence of non-traditional art forms such as the ready-mades created by conceptualist artists, have triggered similar questions. What is it that elevates a pre-existing artefact such as a prefabricated urinal or a bicycle wheel to a work of art – and, by implication, to a work of authorship? According to Swiss copyright scholar Kummer, the decisive creative act here is converting the (in itself unprotectable) idea of a ‘‘ready-made’’ into copyright protected expression by presenting the artefact (the objet trouve´) as a work of art. Kummer’s ‘‘presentation theory’’ implies that the mere act of selecting a pre-existing object suffices to convert the object into a work. While Kummer’s theory has been embraced by some copyright scholars, it remains controversial. In any case, personal selection undoubtedly contributes to a finding of originality in AI-assisted output.

Proving or enforcing authorship or copyright ownership of a work may sometimes be difficult in practice. For this reason, many Member States provide for rules that establish a (rebuttable) presumption of authorship or copyright ownership, in that the person indicated on or with the published work as the author is deemed to be the author, unless proven otherwise. The Berne Convention and the Enforcement Directive validate such legal presumptions and allow the person whose name ‘‘appear[s] on the work in the usual manner’’ to instigate infringement procedures.

Like if picking the favorite ones is what gives them artistic value or makes me the images’ artist, then what if I just generate 20 pics and dump them on a site without even looking at the results? Would they be less worthy of being called art, and would I even be considered as the artist?

Or if I send them to someone else and they pick their favorites and post them online, would they be considered as the artist, even if they had nothing to do with the actual image generation?

I just think that the current prompter/artist/ai assisted artist labels are distinctive and descriptive enough for there to not be any need to start trying to redefine them.