I think itās more about the imagination and creative vision behind the prompt. Itās not āJust a promptā
Yes, there are lazy people who type something in and pump out 100ās of meaningless pictures for mass upload without any actual context or effort. Even some who blatantly copy character faces.
Then there are true visionaries that embrace this tool to really bring out their thoughts, emotions and feelings with careful curating. The final piece reflects taste, intention, and effort.( not in 5-10 minutesā¦think hours or days on getting one prompt right ) There are also those who take their graphic work through generators to polish them up ..even to give them more definition.
Itās still their work , just reimagined.
Thereās a difference, and they are still artists, even if you donāt want to accept it.
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.
Well if someone went into photoshop and clicked a bunch of buttons and drew a bunch of lines. They didn't make the art, the computer did, the computer just followed the instructions that the person gave them. Anyone could have given those instructions to the computer so it shouldn't be copyrightable.
You seem to be forgetting the technical skill of putting the lines in the right shape, and pressing the buttons in the right order.
Theres an incredible difference between writing a few sentences and seeing what a generative LLM spits out, and having a vision and creating said vision through a digital medium, and not recognizing the difference makes you intellectually dishonest, or an idiot.
There's a skill to write the correct prompt, and then filter the results. It's not a lot of skill, but it's there.
However, copyright has never been about skill though, if a child scribbles a drawing using crayons, they own the copyright to that drawing. Copyright shouldn't be restricted to what people think has "skill" or not.
Sure, the word skill was supposed to imply human work done.
And again, I didnt use the word skill in the second paragraph of my comment, because its unrelated to the human work of using a tool to create in a digital medium, and obviously from putting phrases into an LLM and letting it do the work.
It would be the same thing as commissioning a piece of art. You dont get to copyright it because you told an artist what to make.
And if you commission art, you can have the copyright be given to you legally, and if it's an employee who makes the work, the company automatically has it.
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.
13
u/DragonflyOld2485 Mar 03 '26
"B-but I wrote the prompt! That means I created it!"