So recently there has been a lot of debate on AI-generated art and its copyright. I’ve read a lot of comments recently that made me think of this video and I want to highly encourage everyone to watch it, maybe even watch it again if you already viewed it. Watch it specifically with the question “If an AI did it, would it change anything?”

Right now, AI-generated works aren’t copyrightable. https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/ai-generator-art-text-us-copyright-policy-1234661683/ This means you can not copyright the works produced by AI.

I work in games so this is more seemingly relevant to me than maybe it is to you. https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/03/valve-responds-to-claims-it-has-banned-ai-generated-games-from-steam/ Steam has outright said, earlier this month, that it will not publish games on its platform without understanding if the training data has been of images that aren’t public domain.

So right now, common AI is producing works that are potentially copyright-infringing works and are unable to be copyrighted themselves.

So with this information, should copyright exist, and if not, how do you encourage artists and scientists to produce works if they no longer can make a living off of it?

  • RickRussell_CA@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    So realistically, if you make some AI-generated content, I steal it, what do you do? How do you stop me from using your content?

    Whose content is it? What human person holds the copyright?

    • MJBrune@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In that case, if it’s AI-generated content using a training set from the public domain, the content is generated initially as public domain. Adding changes to that, the changes are not public domain. So you’d have to prove that you changed it and that your work on the AI content was transformative, not derivative. But that’s my point, in that case, there is no one that holds the copyright.

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Whoever claims the copyright first, holds it.

        The only difference is that up to now there was a very low chance of “collisions” between two humans creating the exact same piece of art at the same time, while now a piece of AI art can be fully replicated given a model, a prompt, and a seed… but in practice, there is still a very low chance of two people randomly happening to use exactly the same model, prompt, and seed… so we’re back to square one: whoever claims it first, holds it.

        Just remember to claim your AI generated human-made art before someone else does.

          • jarfil@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right now, it kind of does. Like if you took someone else’s work and claimed it as your own: unless they can prove it’s theirs, first one to claim it gets to own the copyright.

            Unfair? You bet. There’s things like SafeCreative that has been running for many years (I used to be part of a precursor to that) or even register it as an NFT to have a proof of precedence.

            • MJBrune@beehaw.orgOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They can prove it’s their by simply showing things like commit logs and creation process. Recreating the work in question. It’s fairly hard to lie about that stuff.

              First one to claim it doesn’t own the copyright. They still have to argue they own the copyright through a series of details. Specially if someone claims it’s ai generated.

              • jarfil@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Current copyright law doesn’t require proving anything other than priority of registration/publication.

                Someone can clam it’s AI all they want, they would have to prove it’s AI. Good luck with that (unless they have the exact model, prompt and seed).

                LPT: if you want to publish a game on Steam with AI-generated assets… don’t tell anyone they’re AI-generated, register them to get your copyright, and present that as proof to Steam when asked.

                BTW, creation progress and “commit logs”, can also be faked.

                • MJBrune@beehaw.orgOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Current copyright law doesn’t require registration or publication in the USA.

                  Also, no, someone can simply take your assets, you then must sue them in court and thus you are suing them and the onus is on YOU to make your case that you hold the copyright.

                  If you want to test your assumption you may do so at your convenience. My guess is Steam is just going to tell you that they see your content as AI-generated and that they don’t have to sell your product.

                  Btw, faked creation progress and commit logs are also provable in court but again, it’s a risk, and if you want to make that risk. Do so. A lot of game studios aren’t going to make that risk just because someone on the internet said they could probably, maybe, get away with it. Video games are multimillion-dollar projects, even for the indie ones, at this point. Betting that you can copyright your game and assets on lying and breaking the law is a risk that most won’t take and most people working on that game wouldn’t stand by. You might find some but the majority of talent isn’t going to.

                  • jarfil@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Current copyright law doesn’t require proving anything other than priority of registration/publication.

                    Current copyright law doesn’t require registration or publication in the USA.

                    sue them in court and thus you are suing them and the onus is on YOU to make your case that you hold the copyright.

                    Precisely: while copyright doesn’t require registration or publication to exist, it does require it to prove in court that it exists. Its abstract existence is moot by itself.

                    If you generate some AI art, and register or publish it as your own, that’s the only proof you (currently) need in court to sue anyone who’d copy it.

                    Regarding Steam, my guess is they’re only gonna CYA and ask you for a statement of ownership, so they can throw you under the bus if anyone comes up with proof that you used AI to generate your assets. (One such proof could be publishing a YouTube video boasting how your game uses AI generated art… don’t do that).

                    Game studios are definitely going to publish games with AI art, they’ll just “forget” to disclose it was AI generated, and if they get some whistleblower, they’ll claim that their copyright is on their transformative use.

                    If Steam wants to retract all games like that, just wait and see how many will fall.