didn't the FTC already say AI works are considered uncopyrightable

RE: https://sfba.social/users/drahardja/statuses/111183818743988429

@icedquinn

That was true until march 16th of this year... On match 16th it became possible for AI works to be copyrighted.

@freemo ah so which megaconglomerate bought congress to make that happen

@freemo the ftc guidance document on that was pretty well reasoned (the constitution says to further the useful arts, and since an AI is not a human there is no creativity being performed to be protected)

so i'm assuming this is retardation

@icedquinn

No, not ALL work by AI is copyrightable.. it is only copyrightable if the human "original mental conception" gave "form" to the work.

You can read the statement here:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence

Here is the relevant quote (its a long document and goes into more detail):

In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author's “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” [24]

The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work.[25]

This is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry.

@freemo so they're just claiming prompt engineers are a real job.

like i said, retardation

@icedquinn

Nope, in fact the explicitly say later that wouldnt be copy writable

It goes on to say:

If a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it.[26]

For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt [27]

from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office's understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material.

@freemo a detailed prompt (description of a desired work) already encompasses human direction in how a work should come out. given a 3-5 sentence description of a potion bottle i dare you to argue that isn't enough to make the case i designed the object (and outsourced the actual rendering of it.)

secondly, prompt control is already an active area of research. positive and negative weights in the prompt, ControlNets, and so on.

the office is clearly retarded and out of touch, as all AI regulators are.

@icedquinn its not about design but if the creative element comes from you... I think they are struggling to define that but i think the examples are clear...

If you created a generative AI that trained off of your own work.. and you gave it your own work and the AI enahanced it to look nicer after your own style... pretty sure that would qualify.

@freemo all artists copy each other and their progenitors, so that's still nonsense

@icedquinn its not about the fact that it copies from someone else... if it only learned from your collectiction of work and was creatively creating from itit wouldnt be enough... it would have to be enhancing specific works... If i do a painting of a face and it goes over it and adds more detail but it looks creatively like the original for example.

@freemo you learned to paint by copying. you stole as much as the robots do, you're just special because

@icedquinn Oh for sure.. the reason robots arent copyrightable isnt because they learned (stole) from people... its because it makes no sense for a machine to hold a copyright... and it also makes no sense for a human who didnt execute the creative process to get a copyright from a machine that did.