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?

  • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    A better analogy would be giving your camera to a passerby and asking them to take your photo, with prompts about what you want in the background, lighting, etc. No matter how detailed your instructions, you won’t have a copyright on the photo.

    I like this analogy a lot.

    “Prompts” are actually used a lot in creative circles, whether for art or writing. But no matter how specific you are when you write a prompt for, say, r/WritingPrompts (and some of them are incredibly specific due to posters literally having an idea and hoping someone else will write it for them), the resulting story will never be copyrighted to you.

      • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The writing is still copyrighted to the writers, not to you, unless the contract states otherwise. Same as with the wedding photo example described in other comments.

      • FlowVoid@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        In a work for hire contract, the contract explicitly states that the employer gets the copyright.

        You can think of the compensation as being partly from employment, and partly from the sale of any copyright.