You have to be the creator of the work in order to copyright it. He didn't create the work. If the wind organized the leaves into a beautiful pattern, he couldn't copyright the leaves either.

AI Prompt User is complaining people stealing their artwork? Well that's new.

If you didn't make it, how the fuck can it be stolen from you?

its debatable who the artist is, however, because if you remove the ai from the picture he could never have made this, and if you remove the training data the results would also be different.

Realistically: everyone whose data this was trained on should be included as authors if its not just public domain

"""Artist"""

Super interesting. The guy claims is wasn't just ai, that he performed alterations as well. If that's true but he still gets shot down it might pave the way for AI being much more shunned in the world out of IP concerns on the output side rather than the training data.

You can't copyright that music, game, book, screenplay or video because AI made some contribution.

That douche punched a sentence into a computer and thinks he’s an artist? My god what have we become.

because it was an expression of his creativity.

yeaaaah no chief, that ain't it.

Oh gee so scammers aren’t getting protection for lying? Dang what a cruel world poor him…

/s

boo fucking hoo. If you want to copyright your painting, learn to fucking paint.

It also sucks and is just another shitty AI generated image full of weird nonsense.

Just because he duped a bunch of idiot judges doesn't mean his art or his arguments have any merit.

“put me in a terrible position, with no recourse against others who are blatantly and repeatedly stealing my work.”

This is an Onion article, right? No one can be this deliberately and hilariously ironically. Fuck AI, and fuck these techbros.

Good luck, buddy. AI output has already been ruled not copyrightable. As it should be.

This is stupid and I hope he gets his butt handed to him, but:

A federal judge agreed with the Office and contrasted AI images to photography, which also uses a processor to capture images, but it is the human that decides on the elements of the picture, unlike AI imagery where the computer decides on the picture elements.

Journey outside the world of API models (like Midjourney) and you can use imagegen tools where " the human that decides on the elements of the picture"

It can be anything from area prompting (kinda drawing bounding boxes where you want things to go) to controlnet/ipadapter models using some other image as reference, to the "creator" making a sketch and the AI "coloring it in" or fleshing it out, to an artist making a worthy standalone painting and letting the AI "touch it up" or change the style (for instance, to turn a digital painting or a pencil sketch to something resembling a physical painting, watercolor, whatever).

The later is already done in photoshop (just not as well) and is generally not placed into the AI bin.

In other words, this argument isn't going to hold up, as the line is very blurry. Legislators and courts are going to have to come up with something more solid.

He did not make it. He essentially commissioned a machine to create an image for him using millions of pieces of art that were stolen from artists. It's no different from commissioning an artist to draw something for you, except the artist turns out to be someone who traces bits of other people's art, or copy and pastes it, and then you attempt to take credit for it instead by claiming that you made it. I predict that this lawsuit is not going anywhere as he does not have a proverbial leg to stand on.

Womp womp

Fun idea: let him copyright his prompt, if he's so particular about his "creativity."

Ah, I remember this image. It received some kind of award or something and created a stir when it was revealed to be AI gen. I can see why that would be incentive to want copyright.

I play with AI image generation all the time. No way do I see that as my work, there’s no skill other than positive and negative prompts, maybe feeding it a a starter image set or something.

Where it might be more concerning is if you use AI gen to create an 2D example of something, then an artist creates a 3D physical representation of the thing. Who owns it? AI famously is not good at creating “whole” things, but one can certainly interpret that image to make a whole of it.

""my work""

The problem is "intellectual property" and capitalism more generally. As technology makes art harder to define and control, the absurdity of violently controlling art will hopefully collapse along with capitalism in general.

I keep saying dude could have just painted it over by now. Is he just stupid. Just paint the picture you already have it.