Opinion: The Copyright Office is making a mistake on AI-generated art (arstechnica.com)

submitted 9 months ago by greenskye@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

162 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've generally been against giving AI works copyright, but this article presented what I felt were compelling arguments for why I might be wrong. What do you think?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] abhibeckert@beehaw.org 7 points 9 months ago

That's not how copyright works. It's perfectly legal to create exactly the same image that someone else made... as long as you didn't copy their image.

[-] catcarlson@beehaw.org 21 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

True, but that assumes that the people filing copyright lawsuits know the law and are acting in good faith. And that the recipient does, too.

If I'm an artist living paycheck-to-paycheck and I get a copyright-related cease-and-desist, I probably won't have the money or time to fight it even if I know that it's wrong.

[-] Lowbird@beehaw.org 8 points 9 months ago

Yeah. In a world where lawyers cost money, corporations can and will squash small artists without hesitation, with cease and desists, DMCA takedowns via youtube and similar platforms, and by threatening lawsuits they won't even have to persue because most people can't afford to fight it.

Even companies often can't afford to fight bigger companies. Like, the makers of Kimba the White Lion had a very clear case that Disney plagiarized them in making The Lion King (if you go on youtube you can find shot-for-shot scene comparisons, it's bonkers) but couldn't afford to fight it at all. And that was a company - individual artists have no chance vs disney & etc.