Monkey Selfie Killed AI Copyrights

a reply to: beyondknowledge

ahh but you forgot corporations are people.

so they will make AI a person too. Just make sure to not unplug your pc if it has AI running, you murderer.

a reply to: darkbake

Owner of what monkey?

The photographer was from Britten and the monkey was was wild in Indonesia. The argument was that the wild monkey had copyright of the selfie.

The photographer also lost out because the photo was declared public domain.

a reply to: interupt42

Is that what that little squeek that happens when my pc hard drive shuts down is? I thought it was just the heads parking.

Also a program is not a corporation, therefore not a person by that definition.

The thing is the AI use's Lots of other art in
a mix and/or cartoon way to make new art.
so in a way it is stealing art.
it depends on how much of the original art is use'd.

and using a AI to do art!
YOU can not say its Your art.
you just Run a program.

Agreed it's not your decision.

They are wrong. If the artwork is created by a human utilizing an AI tool, then it is the human using the tool who can copyright = AI is not alive and is not human = Never will be Human .. All they have to do is change a few words to make it so

Unless the AI was the original thought of the creation and generated the work itself, it isn't anyone's to copyright but the individual who created the AI. My 2


. a reply to: beyondknowledge

a reply to: beyondknowledge

That's good lol...
"AI-generated art is not legally able to be copyrighted in the United States."

I never liked how AI scoured the internet for every image on the internet, including stolen, copyrighted, and illegal images.

It would have been far more ethical to hire artists, license-free art, etc. to create images for the AI to use and generate.

There is a segment of people who believe that AI can "create."

I maintain that AI doesn't create art, it synthesizes art. It is the very definition of derivative.

Here's an experiment to test the theory...
REMOVE all AI access to existing art, then tell the AI to make art.
Expected result: The result will not conform to any expectations of "artistic expression."

Of course, that's not to say that what AI can synthesize isn't stunningly beautiful at times... but without a prior pattern upon which to work, AI can't create. It can only organize 'randomness' which could be quite beautiful, but it is nevertheless random.

This covers the two lawsuits, one in LA and the other in the Uk and my guess at the outcomes.

a reply to: nerbot

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.

You’re absolutely right. But it won’t be like that for ever.

As a creative professional, I have needed to grapple with the AI question myself.

In general, I endorse most heartily the stance you have taken in this thread. Still, it’s pretty clear that the future of AI is the professional death of the commercial artist, musician or writer.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: darkbake

Owner of what monkey?

The photographer was from Britten and the monkey was was wild in Indonesia. The argument was that the wild monkey had copyright of the selfie.

The photographer also lost out because the photo was declared public domain.

I learned more about copyright law recently. Anything made by AI cannot be copyrighted, but it CAN be used. The artwork it makes are in the public domain I guess.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

I think, reading some of the responses, that there is a definition issue. What is "intelligence"? It is one of those things that for years, I considered similar to porn... no real definition, but I knew it when I saw it.

But I was thinking about this thread and I think I now have a definition. I define intelligence as "the ability to independently consider, plan, and execute a series of actions to achieve one or more independently determined goals."

No computer can do that; no program can do that. All computers simply execute programs fed to them. All programs are a series of algorithms developed by a human with intelligence, translated into commands the computer can recognize and execute. That's as far as it goes... no thought, no planning, no consideration except as has been programmed in.

In contrast, I can plan to execute a series of actions that achieve my goal. For instance, I am considering trying my hand at beekeeping. Where did that come from? Let me explain the train of thought that led me to that goal:

It started with me thinking about this year's garden, and what I would like to do different from last year. Last year the garden produced little although it bloomed quite vociferously. I know that bees pollinate vegetables and that better pollination will likely lead to better yields. We have some bees, but apparently not enough. My next thought was how could I encourage more bees? Provide them a place to live here... OK, that's called "beekeeping."

What is required for beekeeping? As I am not able to do physical work like I once could, the time and energy spent must be low. It is! One, maybe two harvests a year, each one taking one or two days (at my physical level) and regular visits just to check on them. That works, so I proceed to the next step.

How much does it cost? I have to be able to afford to do it and I am on a fixed income. Well, there are a couple pieces of equipment for the harvesting, the hive itself, and the bees of course. I can build the hive myself from lumber I have, so I make up a budget based on what I think I need after watching several videos about beekeeping and reading several articles. It turns out to be affordable. I still have one issue: where to buy the bees. So I have to find places that will sell me the bees. I find them.

At every step, I am looking for a better way. I find several different hive designs to choose from based on how many bees I want to keep. I learn that the lumber I planned to use is not the best for that purpose... I was planning on using cedar, but it turns out many wild bees like cedar and will attack my hive. So I set up a swap with a sawmill: an oak log that just fell in exchange for poplar lumber. I examine different areas to see where to keep them... I want them close enough to check/harvest easily, but not so close as to be a nuisance around the house.

In short, I go through question after question, none of which were given to me to ask myself. Every one I came up with independently. The very goal of raising bees was an independent thought based on another goal: a better garden harvest. At every stage, I had to consider not what the most efficient or least expensive method was, but which method suited a variety of different parameters that only applied to my specific needs. A computer cannot do that. A computer cannot decide it wants to raise bees for a garden or even that it wants to grow a garden; someone has to tell it that it wants to grow the garden.

That's what separates intelligence from mechanics.

Now, applying that to the question of copyright: art is the production of an item that communicates emotion through various media. It is intended to be pleasurable to the artist as well, a way to express themselves. Therefore, it must be an independent goal. Since no machine can develop an independent goal, no machine can "create art." The computer can obviously help to create art, but so can a camera, a paintbrush, sculpting tools, etc. Therefore, "AI" produced art, where the artist inputs the emotion they wish to express or perhaps keywords and allows a computer program to draw from the work of others to create it is certainly not art... it is plagiarism of the art of others, simply projected through the lens the programmer, not the artist, has defined. The artist only points the "AI" in a direction.

As such, since copyright is there to prevent plagiarism, it makes no sense to allow copyright of that which is created from plagiarism. Even if copyright were allowed, would the true intelligence behind the art be the artist, or the programmer who defined how the artist would be understood?

I think the court ruling is correct. "AI" created art should not be copyrightable.

TheRedneck

a reply to: darkbake

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.

If AI cannot create, it is not intelligent. It's a machine, like a digital camera, maybe more complex, maybe with more uses, but still just a machine.

TheRedneck

a reply to: beyondknowledge

The solution is simple... redefine the word Art

There's plenty of that going around in this day and age lol.

I'd opt for just finding/making a new word for it.

originally posted by: matafuchs
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?

Imagine the look on the monkey's face when PETA said "hey, we're going to court so you can get the copyright!" I'm sure the monkey was thrilled with that idea and jumped up and down with excitement 😁 Then, scratched his butt and sniffed his fingers.

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 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.

It's because the monkey and the machine aren't making art, they are simply mimicking behavior which your mind then attributes to actions which or the feelings associated with the word (Art)

Even as a human taking a selfie is hardly a skill or craft let alone an art.

The Art of the Selfie, gosh how low will we stoop... what is accepted as art I suppose is an acquired taste?

originally posted by: interupt42

so they will make AI a person too...

Obviously a Democrat right? Democrats are the party of AI, their intelligence is artificial... like artificial sweetener

It's not the real-deal.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: darkbake

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.

If AI cannot create, it is not intelligent. It's a machine, like a digital camera, maybe more complex, maybe with more uses, but still just a machine.

TheRedneck

I agree with you RedNeck. The AI we have now like ChatGPT and image generators are machines like a calculator or digital camera. I am not sure if it is possible to surpass that or not.

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: interupt42

so they will make AI a person too...

Obviously a Democrat right?

Nah both parties have the same end games and that is to make corporations ,lobbyist,and the hidden puppet masters happy.

Kind of like net neutrality. The republicans played the roll of bad cop and killed it under trump while the democrats were screaming how important net neutrality is and we shouldn't let the evil republicans kill it. Yet once the democrats got into power not even a peep of net neutrality was ever again heard from the MSM , the democrat party, nor the tech companies who were so against it. Its all a game but rest assure both party are playing for the same game and for the same team. They control the narrative, have control of what you get to hear and see and the power to change the laws as needed to their favor.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

Sophia the AI has been given human rights in Saudia. Would that mean she can copyright>

a reply to: interupt42

AI will become right-leaning, it's evolution...

Democrats and leftist should be worried.