You still need humans for copyrights. www.reuters.com/legal/legali... - ThreadSky

scalzi.com • 1 day ago

You still need humans for copyrights.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/us-copyright-office-issues-highly-anticipated-report-copyrightability-ai-2025-04-02/

Comments

strawslut.bsky.social•23 hours ago

So does this mean someone can plaigarise an AI piece that has ripped off an actual artist or author's work? Especially other AIs....
I can see enough ways to abuse this correct ruling to satisfy Nikolai Lobochevski!

endmalcompetence.bsky.social•10 hours ago

I want to see all the AI news slop articles copied endlessly by an even lower-tier of scum that have slightly fewer ads because copying is cheaper than generating.

humzas-brain.bsky.social•1 day ago

I read an AI written novella recently and in truth as a light weight sci-fi story for teens it was ok. The only problem is that it was supposed to be a very grown up space horror.

AI’s simulated emotions are too simplistic and lack the complexity needed to do really good story telling

patrixilent.bsky.social•1 day ago

I am pretty interested in AI "art" generation, although I am also vehemently against it being released commercially, in any way, shape or form. It can be fun to look at in private, but there should be no way to make money with it, because that's just stealing.

susankayequinn.bsky.social•1 day ago

"I enjoy the stolen goods in the privacy of my own home" is not the moral argument you think it is.

patrixilent.bsky.social•1 day ago

The creators don't have any less of it, because it is copied, not taken from them. And if it's not sold, I'm not making money off of them. But yes, you are absolutely correct, AI "art" generation should be regulated somehow to protect the artists.

susankayequinn.bsky.social•1 day ago

You are absolutely incorrect about your points. Have fun with your spoils.

patrixilent.bsky.social•1 day ago

I am wrong about saying that artists should be protected so thiefs won't make money with their creations? Seems odd.

susankayequinn.bsky.social•1 day ago

You know which points I mean.

But I see determined obliviousness is a character trait for you.

gnarlygeek.bsky.social•1 day ago

This! ☝️✅

isobelstarling.bsky.social•1 day ago

There are lots of illegal, immoral things that 'can be fun to look at in private' according to AI bros. CSAM is one of them. Any machine that enables images of sexual abuse to be used for training, then produces images with the faces/bodies of victims, which are then traded, needs to die in a fire.

patrixilent.bsky.social•1 day ago

I 100% agree.

elvarien.bsky.social•23 hours ago

You'll be glad to learn then that each and every piece of ai content was made by a human using ai.

crabofdoom.bsky.social•23 hours ago

No, it isn't. When you press buttons on a coffee vending machine, you didn't create the coffee that comes out. You just gave a processor an order that combined existing elements someone else prepared. You can resell the cup, if you can find a buyer, but not as your own unique, rebranded product.

elvarien.bsky.social•23 hours ago

In your comparison you conveniently left out the human element from ai art. It's a tool a human can use to make art or content. Not understanding how it works is fine but don't make sweeping statements about the process from ignorance.

crabofdoom.bsky.social•22 hours ago

The human element is everyone who made the original materials you tell a program to blender together so you don't have to learn anything. Nothing AI produces would exist without theft--even AI owners says so when they cry that paying existing copyrights for materials would kill their business model.

elvarien.bsky.social•21 hours ago

That's just not how ai works though. The whole "ai mixes existing art work" is such a stubborn and dumb idea that refuses to die. To train a single base model you need billions of images. The storage space takes up a warehouse easy. If ai just blends existing work like you say it would [cont]

elvarien.bsky.social•20 hours ago

Need access to all those images to blend them. This means a single model should take up about a warehouse worth of space. On my home pc i have over 40 models. Your idea of how ai works goes against physics. It's just not how ai works, it can't work that way. Please stop using that dumb argument.

ctype.bsky.social•1 day ago

idk what to think ;)

michaelcpaul.bsky.social•10 hours ago

Somebody will pay Trump enough and this will change. Sadly.

jeffhancockphoto.com•16 hours ago

If you give an AI generated work a copyright, it will probably be copyrighted twice

studentet-eternal.bsky.social•1 day ago

Presumably tech and media companies will just have some quisling put their name on it and the onus will be on everyone else to prove they just signed off on slop. I have some suspiscion this has already happened.

xxstitchiexx.bsky.social•9 hours ago

Copyrights law due for a change. I think most of the copyright laws are outdated

adamiani.bsky.social•8 hours ago

Yes. We need to strengthen them to make AI training illegal.

xxstitchiexx.bsky.social•8 hours ago

I don’t hate certain things people like. I don’t do Anti stuff. This going against AI just anti-culture.

adamiani.bsky.social•8 hours ago

Seems like you have a very strange definition of culture.

kithrup.bsky.social•1 day ago

This is the only reason the cats have let us live.

ramicure.bsky.social•5 hours ago

Nope, PETA saw to that if you remember the monkey selfie

ravenson.bsky.social•1 day ago

That’s a bit of a relief—with the way everything else is burning to the ground in the US it’s refreshing to hear something go against the tech bros.

goldendoodle-dandy.bsky.social•1 day ago

But could you replace humans with AI to judge whether a work met the baseline human creative content to meet the copyright requirement?

gnarlygeek.bsky.social•1 day ago

Looking forward to seeing how this ruling might be used in the court battles between human copyright holders and the unauthorized and uncompensated use of copyrighted materials to train AI systems. This section indirectly addresses it: "Expressive inputs and the resulting outputs."

authoross.bsky.social•1 day ago

Is it just me or is it confusing to want to copyright AI works while also wanting to demolish copyright for actual creators so that plagiarism machines can make money? Or is it just two groups of AI people?

ditmartian.bsky.social•1 day ago

It's perfectly consistent within the extractive/exploitative economic model that presupposes it. Once they "extract" it, they will claim to own it.

dannohung.bsky.social•1 day ago

I think what we should do is base copyright duration on how many people were involved in authorship. AI made? No copyright term as it leverages all humanity’s efforts. Single author? Nice long term. 20 or 30 years. Small team? 15 years. Big team. 10. Huge corporation? 5

dannohung.bsky.social•1 day ago

Prevents benefits from accruing to capital. Make copyright non-transferable too so capital can’t buy up rights.

thubakabra.bsky.social•1 day ago

More likely the same group of people. They find millions of excuses why one is okay and one is unfair.

jrhanlon.bsky.social•1 day ago

The future these tech bros seem to envision is one where AI scrapes content to the point where the original content isn’t worth making, and then you just have a bunch of AIs copying each other with nothing of any commercial value being created by people. They’re destroying the resource they rely on.

endmalcompetence.bsky.social•10 hours ago

By the time that happens, they'll have disruptively pivoted to the rideshare on the blockchain for gig-worker cats.

seonaid-lee.bsky.social•1 day ago

"My business model depends on slurping up and enclosing all human knowledge."

"I enclosed that, it's mine now. How am I supposed to make money if you let other people do the same thing?"

seonaid-lee.bsky.social•1 day ago

It's not just the same approach, it's the same *people* as the free speech hypocrisy - if I do it and you complain or limit my reach, it's an infringement. If you do it and the government locks you away, it's a reasonable constraint and necessary.

cuthbertscoast.bsky.social•1 day ago

It's normal thieves' reasoning. I steal a bottle of whiskey but having stolen it I then regard it as my own property.

edfinnerty.bsky.social•1 day ago

Just one group of horrible, greedy people.

thomasley.bsky.social•1 day ago

Makes perfect sense to me, from their perspective.

elshoggotho.bsky.social•1 day ago

In German legalese, there's the concept of "Schöpfungshöhe", which regulates the amount of original human work in a given piece, for matters of copyright. Basically, you can't copyright anything derivative unless your original human input is enough to make the work distinctive. That should apply.

stgb344.bsky.social•8 hours ago

American copyright also has that.

simply-bill.bsky.social•23 hours ago

AIUI, living humans. Only Living Humans create things in our society or culture. And someday we will unpeel the Mickey Mouse banana back to something reasonable.

richpeall.bsky.social•5 hours ago

Show me a hammer that built a house of its own doing?

'AI' (as we know them) LLM Diffusion etc only operate when instructed by a HUMAN, they only exist because HUMANS coded them—On machines built by HUMANS.

They, and by extension-their outputs, are a product of human capability.

mollygrub.bsky.social•4 hours ago

A lot of hate for Ai here, from people I don't suspect use it on a regular basis. In the long run it will be just another new tool, part of almost everything. Look at your keyboard on your phone. If it has word suggestions across the top chances are you have used primitive Ai in your writing.

supersaiga.bsky.social•1 day ago

I was sad that that photographer didn't get the rights to that "selfie" that ape took, but maybe it's good

(i say ape because I forget what species he was, he was a non-human ape)

robertmonsarrat.bsky.social•1 day ago

It was a Celebes Crested Macaque monkey named Naruto if I remember correctly.

supersaiga.bsky.social•1 day ago

that would be a very specific and detailed memory to turn out to be incorrect

petermilley.bsky.social•1 day ago

Until Altman or Musk convinces some twit in the Trump Admin (but I repeat myself) to push a "National Emergency to Safeguard Innovation" or some such nonsense.

2karl.bsky.social•1 day ago

I refuse to honour any "copyright" of fucking AI. I'll carry on supporting humans.

danplum.bsky.social•10 hours ago

In order to copyright an AI image you'll need to identify it's components... Good luck.

furrywriter.bsky.social•1 day ago

Thank you for putting the BLUF.

mkg.bsky.social•1 day ago

This makes sense.

Because it makes sense, the LLMsquad will have it overturned.

sluggard.bsky.social•1 day ago

One of the odd things about “web3” is that it’s full of hopeful assumptions about laws, without doing anything about laws.
I’ve seen NFT arguments that they aren’t subject to copyright, so your IP ownership of a meme image would last forever.

sluggard.bsky.social•1 day ago

Similar thing here from the point of view of ai art proponents— “this is a new thing, so I’ll assume I get all the benefits of current law for me, but not the disadvantages”

endmalcompetence.bsky.social•10 hours ago

It starts edging into "Sovereign Citizen" craziness: "I have that One Weird Trick that *they*don't want you to know about."

misseli.bsky.social•1 day ago

📌

joshuamannix.bsky.social•1 day ago

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply