undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnananana91mo ago0 comments

We can write new laws when new things happen, not everything has to circle back to copyright, a concept invented in the 1700s to protect printers' guilds.

Copyright is about granting exclusive rights - maybe there's an argument to be had about granting a person rights of an AI tool's output when "used with supervision and intent", but I see very little sense in granting them any exclusive rights over a possibly incredibly vast amount of AI-generated output that they had no hand whatsoever in producing.

0 comments

Aerroon1mo ago

The important point is why AI generated works aren't given copyright protection - it's because the human isn't considered to be the author.

This is what the copyright office said about the comic with AI generated images:

>Rather than a tool that Ms. Kashtanova controlled and guided to reach her desired image, Midjourney generates images in an unpredictable way. Accordingly, Midjourney users are not the “authors” for copyright purposes of the images the technology generates.

If the human involved isn't considered the author of the work, then shouldn't that also have an impact on liability?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse