FA+
Shop
Are AI generated Artworks now theft?
3 years ago
General
Since there is a big discussion in English space whether AI generated artworks is now theft?
I have a little me also linked and want to list 3 points.
But first I want to clarify something before. I share the view of the American-Russian writer Ayn Rand on the subject of intellectual property. Everybody should have the right to reap the fruits of the work derived from the natural law*.
Intellectual property should not be preserved for 70 years after the death of the owner of the intellectual property, as is the case in Germany, for example. But the intellectual property after the death of the owner should become puplic domain.
Since I am following the German Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia is a little different. I link both entries here.
Naturrecht
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturrecht
Natural law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
I have collected three answers and I will share them with you.
a) That the AI examines other images and on the basis of it designs something itself is not a violation of intellectual property, but to get inspiration is the normal case (If you do not want others to be inspired by your art, even no AIs, then do not show it publicly, or do not post it on platforms where AIs can access, or only on platforms where that would be forbidden to AIs).
b) Everything generated by the AI belongs to the owner of the AI first
c) The owner can then sell it as he likes, or give others the right to use the AI to create property.
To the topic I have found a podcast long video and I know the gentleman well. The man is a historian and social scientist and wants to add an additional perspective. This one observes that the "anti-AI" movement is full of oversimplifications.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNU4FPhmOtA
Think Rationally about this and don't be so quick to be led by emotion.
Thanks
I have a little me also linked and want to list 3 points.
But first I want to clarify something before. I share the view of the American-Russian writer Ayn Rand on the subject of intellectual property. Everybody should have the right to reap the fruits of the work derived from the natural law*.
Intellectual property should not be preserved for 70 years after the death of the owner of the intellectual property, as is the case in Germany, for example. But the intellectual property after the death of the owner should become puplic domain.
Since I am following the German Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia is a little different. I link both entries here.
Naturrecht
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturrecht
Natural law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
I have collected three answers and I will share them with you.
a) That the AI examines other images and on the basis of it designs something itself is not a violation of intellectual property, but to get inspiration is the normal case (If you do not want others to be inspired by your art, even no AIs, then do not show it publicly, or do not post it on platforms where AIs can access, or only on platforms where that would be forbidden to AIs).
b) Everything generated by the AI belongs to the owner of the AI first
c) The owner can then sell it as he likes, or give others the right to use the AI to create property.
To the topic I have found a podcast long video and I know the gentleman well. The man is a historian and social scientist and wants to add an additional perspective. This one observes that the "anti-AI" movement is full of oversimplifications.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNU4FPhmOtA
Think Rationally about this and don't be so quick to be led by emotion.
Thanks
