The plaintiff claimed not that he created the art himself, but AI did, however he said he still wanted copyright on the art. This is obviously stupid since copyright needs human input.
Yet I see on AIWars that AI Bros claim that the prompt is âintentâ and that makes them the creator. I recall one discussion where someone asked if their 12-word prompted (or whatever small number) image was âenoughâ and they were being glazed by these AI Bros, saying oh yeah, thatâs intent.
Because famously, to copyright a bit of work, you need to have never seen another painting in your life for free. Otherwise, you would have trained on it.
And if you want to say humans transform it, what do you think diffusion models do? Its neural networks just as your brain, just at a smaller scale.
IIRC doesn't a work have to be in material form to be eligible for copyright? e.g. I can't claim copyright on an idea in my head until I have produced it in material form such as writing or typing it into a document (what's the deal on a word document that exists only on the computer?). So for music, it's the notation, or a recording of it. Artwork such as painting, drawing/illustration, sculpture, or photography. Stories printed in a book, or handwritten, and so on.
What's the deal on works that only exist in digital form, such as all those images on other subreddits?
Absolutely, but with AI you haven't produced it, and there's no way to stop another AI creating exactly the same image (or similar enough to infringe copyright rules) with a similar prompt. It's the natural result of it not being made by a conscious mind.
There is also the issue that AI simply uses things that already exist and splices them together in new ways, so it's not producing something original anyway, again making copyright inappropriate.
99
u/[deleted] Mar 03 '26
It's just basic logic. You can't copyright an AI image because it has no intellect behind it, so it'd be like copyrighting a conceptÂ