Monkey Selfie Killed AI Copyrights

This is interesting. Legally no AI generated art can copyrighted, at least in the USA.

I thought I would put something on not political and not about the usual distruction going on.

A monkey grabbed a camera and took a selfie. The owner of the camera published the picture. PETA sued saying the monkey owned the copyright to the photo. PETA lost and the courts ruled that for it to be copyrighted, a human had to create it. This makes all non human made 'art', AI 'art', uncopyrightable.

Now as some know by recent discussions, AI 'art' is known for stealing copyrighted material. This ruling makes all the AI generated abominations uncopyrightable and therefore unprotected legally.



The trend of AI menipulating the works of humans may be ending.
Shall we discuss this AI legal ruling?

Please move if in the wrong forum.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

IMO you should be able to use AI just like any other tool for making art, or hand a chimp a camera to take pictures if that's a concept you came up with, they should be your property, just like the chimp or the software was.

Using other people's work is where the problem lies. No question that shouldn't be copyrightable.

Just my 2 cents.

Uhm, forget about the AI. I want to talk more about a court case were PETA sued because a monkey took a picture...ROFL....that entire thing is one of the funniest things I have read in awhile. Can you imagine the guy they sued trying to tell that story with a straight face?

a reply to: MykeNukem

The courts have decided that if Artificial Intelligence was used to creat an image or other work, it cannot be copyrighted. Not my decision.

I don't mind some of that art if it is not just manipulation of others works but that is all it is most of the time.

Several good artests have left DeviantArt because of them introducing an AI system a short time ago. It is just an automatic manipulation system.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: MykeNukem
The courts have decided that if Artificial Intelligence was used to creat an image or other work, it cannot be copyrighted. Not my decision.

I realize that.

I don't agree with the ruling.

a reply to: matafuchs

Here is more information on the photo and resulting law suits.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Apparently PETA sued on behalf of the monkey in an effort to get money for the monkeys copyright. The photographer also claims quite a loss because this photo is now public domain.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

Thanks! I went down the rabbit hole when I read this. Man. I WISH I had enough free time to do # like PETA does.When I saw the pic I immediately remembered reading about how it took a selfie but did not read about the lawsuit.

Now, as far as AI, it is a program until it is given sentient status right?

Remix’s and music samples don’t violate copyright laws either but they should.

Lots of brain dead artists out there making music off the back of legendary tracks.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
.....for it to be copyrighted, a human had to create it. This makes all non human made 'art', AI 'art', uncopyrightable.

Nonsense! If a person chooses to use A.I. to make an artwork, what's the difference between that and using a digital camera that can do so much of the technical stiff leaving the "creator" free to point the camera where they please.

A human creates artwork using an A.I. and it is the creator who has the right to his or her work.

A.I. needs words and images as imput, they can be quite amazing and the joy far outweights any financial or ownership issues.

I have always shared all my art beyond the commercial stuff I did decades ago.

Peace, from me, using an A.I. artbot called "Midjourney".

a reply to: matafuchs

It is a program that is made to simulate some of the actions of intelligence, not necessarily human. The art ones are supposed to learn from what they find then make 'art' from this learning and simple instructions that they are given.

This leaning is the problem. They copy other works then try to change them enough to make them look different. This has made a lot of human artists mad as their works have been taken this way.

When does one become sentient is the problem. If it acts good enough, how can you tell the difference? Is it making what you want, or analyzing all internet traffic for its own purposes and copying itself to other places in case you turn it off.

a reply to: Athetos

I could not agree more. Too many new songs are just parts of old songs sampled and remixed.

Almost nothing is truly new or even a reimagining of the original version.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

The artistic talent will always lie with the person. No A.I. can produce random prompts for itself to arrive at a work of humanly appreciative art without some kind of human imagination imputting something relevant.

Artificial Intelligence is just a "calculator", like a PC or even a Mobile.

a reply to: nerbot

You will have to take that up with the courts.

I think both sides are going too far. The AI should be limited in how much of another work it can start from but also the user should have to make some artistic input other than just a couple of words.

a reply to: nerbot

Are you using a digital camera to take pictures of paintings to call they your art? What about someone that downloads photos to add to what they claim as their art?

That is what we are talking about. It is happening. The AI can do it for you.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

Artificial Intelligence is an ideal, and has not yet been achieved.

Everywhere the phrase is used in the context of being an existing technology, should be stricken and replaced with the word "mimicry". That is reality presently, as we can only simulate Artificial Intelligence.

a reply to: charlyv

I can agree with that. They have released some tools that clam to be AI that are just not in any way living up to the claims.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: nerbot
Are you using a digital camera to take pictures of paintings to call they your art?

No.

What about someone that downloads photos to add to what they claim as their art?

"reference" you mean? What's the problem?

What photos are available as sources is up to the owners of those photos to keep them private and unavailable for use as sources.

That is what we are talking about. It is happening. The AI can do it for you.

The A.I. cannot do zip unless a person uses a "prompt" and imputs their own creative talents and their own imagination to get a result.

A.I. is a tool. Like a camera that can do multiple exposures, timelapse and all sorts of other things. An A.I. that pushes buttons and twiddles settings taking shots while you can make a cup of tea.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

Right now AI is really nothing more than a glorified app. Software has been able to learn for years. Look at simple games that can 'learn' patterns of the users behavior to 'win'.

When people do not want to know the difference is where the problem will begin. How can you trust something that is not...human?

a reply to: nerbot

You are not on art websites like DeviantArt then. They have their own AI for you to use and it uses all the art there for reference. There is no way to stop it.

Artests that have been there for years, sometimes over 10 years, have left in protest.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

Do you notice how the owner of the monkey published the picture? That's the exact same thing as the user of an AI model publishing a picture. Notice the picture was published in both cases.

AI is a tool to create art, as the artist still has to tell it what to do. AI is not really creating anything on its own. It is the artist's vision that is being realized.