FA+
Shop
[Call to Action] AI Art open Comment
2 years ago
Hey, I wanted to remind everyone that the US copyright office is currently taking comments on how to handle AI Generated content. Tomorrow is the last day to comment. Its been extended to the 30th. Please make your voices heard so they dont only hear from AI Bros.
Issues at stake include:
1) Should artists be compensated for being used in AI models.
2) Whether material produced by AI generation should be allowed to hold copyright, and if so, how much input is required to receive protection.
3) Who is liable for infringing works. Should the algorithm creators be able to wash their hands of any infringement created and leave it all on the user
4) How should AI outputs that identify the style or identity of human artists be handled, eg) AI actors using dead actors and voices and stuff.
https://tinyurl.com/AIOpenComment
My comment is below, if you wish to adapt it to your own.
1) Use of materials without the consent of the artist is unethical and is infringing on an artist's right by default, and seeks to ultimately displace human artists in media. There must be both positive agreement from artists being used, and compensation for artists used in these datasets.
2) AI art is generated by an algorithm and should not be copyrightable, in the same way that you cant use a computer to generate all variations of valid sentences and copyright them. The fact that a human is selecting the outputs that they like does not actually give them control over the image itself, any more than a website curating a bunch of images inherently owns the copyright to those images. Prompting does not actually produce any real creative input into the system, for the system could inherently produce those results without prompting too. Or you could imagine a system where the machine generates a list of prompts to run.
3) Infringement of work generated using AI systems should be liable to the system creating it. That way a company cant just provide infringing works and then just wash their hands of it saying oh it was the client who did it.
4) AI outputs for imitating the identity or style of a human artist is especially problematic, in that it will allow the facilitation of forgeries, and could tarnish an artists name by associating them with themes and works that they would otherwise not produce. Additionally, allowing actors and other artists to exist in perpetuity will deny future human artists the chance to make it big, as they will be competing with now dead actors in the future whom the public is nostalgic for.
They presently have less than 10k comments, so your comment really does matter.
Issues at stake include:
1) Should artists be compensated for being used in AI models.
2) Whether material produced by AI generation should be allowed to hold copyright, and if so, how much input is required to receive protection.
3) Who is liable for infringing works. Should the algorithm creators be able to wash their hands of any infringement created and leave it all on the user
4) How should AI outputs that identify the style or identity of human artists be handled, eg) AI actors using dead actors and voices and stuff.
https://tinyurl.com/AIOpenComment
My comment is below, if you wish to adapt it to your own.
1) Use of materials without the consent of the artist is unethical and is infringing on an artist's right by default, and seeks to ultimately displace human artists in media. There must be both positive agreement from artists being used, and compensation for artists used in these datasets.
2) AI art is generated by an algorithm and should not be copyrightable, in the same way that you cant use a computer to generate all variations of valid sentences and copyright them. The fact that a human is selecting the outputs that they like does not actually give them control over the image itself, any more than a website curating a bunch of images inherently owns the copyright to those images. Prompting does not actually produce any real creative input into the system, for the system could inherently produce those results without prompting too. Or you could imagine a system where the machine generates a list of prompts to run.
3) Infringement of work generated using AI systems should be liable to the system creating it. That way a company cant just provide infringing works and then just wash their hands of it saying oh it was the client who did it.
4) AI outputs for imitating the identity or style of a human artist is especially problematic, in that it will allow the facilitation of forgeries, and could tarnish an artists name by associating them with themes and works that they would otherwise not produce. Additionally, allowing actors and other artists to exist in perpetuity will deny future human artists the chance to make it big, as they will be competing with now dead actors in the future whom the public is nostalgic for.
Bantam
Submitted a comment
I made a comment about a month ago, I really like your comments, very good points you bring up! Glad they are having a public commentary period, and I hope it provides some results for all us artists and creatives in general [musicians, voice actors, etc.]
