Re:U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containin...
by layer8 on Thursday March 16, 2023 @10:15PM
(#35192038)
The document addresses that:
> In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.”
Re:U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containin...
by greensoap on Thursday March 16, 2023 @10:23PM
(#35192106)
Pretty sure the office said the arrange of the book was itself protectable but the individual images were not.
https://www.onmanorama.com/news/world/2023/02/23/comic-book-...
Re:U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containin...
by basch on Thursday March 16, 2023 @10:40PM
(#35192237)
Didn’t the author claim to be photoshopping and compositing the images themselves?
If I render 6 characters, composite them into a background and run the complete composite through another generative step to clean it up, where do I fall?
Re:U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containin...
by telotortium on Thursday March 16, 2023 @10:16PM
(#35192043)
They allowed the comic book author to copyright the accompanying text and the overall arrangement of the images into a comic book, but not the images themselves.
What if I generate it 50 times and cobble together a final product from the variants, choosing which line and word and rhyme I like from each sample? Where is the line between LLM and thesaurus/dictionary?
The comic book the office rejected seems to me to have crossed a line of significant human editorial discrediting after the generative fact, and they didn’t care.