Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
It is a bit more complicated than that, and the legal motivation from the Copyright Office is different than what you describe.
One of the most informative cases, in my opinion, is the Copyright Office’s back and forth on Zarya of the Dawn. In their view, even thousands of refining prompts cannot be sufficient to convey copyright protection on an AI generated image since it lacks the necessary control and connection to the person. Suryast is another helpful case. I think they’re still very incomplete when you start to consider works like those from Jackson Pollock or, my personal favorite hypo, an artist with a prosthetic that uses statistical machine learning to control the end effector and thus the paintbrush. But those are just hypotheticals for now.
I help chair a conference of IP attorneys and others who specialize in software licensing and AI so we’ve been talking about this for a while now. We actually just had the conference this week so I can probably share some resources or presentations if people really want to get nerdy about it.
I’d actually love some documentation because it is indeed very complicated.
I’m also curious about your opinion on which way they will swing, since I see the courts kind of sticking to the middle more than anything.
The Zarya case seems pretty clear. From an article though:
By and large, Sota models do give that kind of control nowadays, so I don’t know if that would change things.
I feel like it’s going to end up as a case by case basis, where it depends on the feeling of effort put into it more than anything else.
I suppose the general understanding thus far is similar to how much copyright a boss is entitled to the intellectual work of his underlings? I mean, that hypothetical artist is actually controlling the tool, vibe coders aren’t controlling anything.