You did an amazing job explaining something that is so complicated and confusing but also very relevant right now in both videos. That’s why it got so popular (even if you’re not a lawyer 🤓). Very good job 👏
Regarding character images being characters: "A drawing, picture, depiction, or written description of a character can be registered for copyright. Protection does not, however, extend to... the general idea or name for characters depicted, or their intangible attributes." -United States Copyright Office
I did a project on this topic back when the first video was released and it was the most extensive and accessible resource at the time! Thanks for the effort you put in :)
Thanks for covering a part 2, even as a non expert the video is very insightful and interesting to listen to. You really called out some unique questions in this one that I have never considered and some insight on existing policies that I never even knew 😆. I suppose at the end of the day the boundaries will be pushed and tested by those more adventurous, I'm very curious to see how it all plays out. Great video! Happy to see more of your educational art videos again.
Thanks, glad you found it interesting. And yes, when you really start thinking of all the possibilities and exceptions to the rules, it can be mind boggling. This world is gonna get extra crazy.
@@ArtOfSoulburn It's rather simple, honestly. To me at least. Not to mankind, sadly. Unfortunately, the AI Tech in question is but one style. I have seen the others and it is beyond simple prompting. The Matrix Equation, my many creations, is an omni machine which can count and recreate existence down to the fine details. Many other entities have designed their own... ... ... I say this because it is the path in which Humanity will soon walk upon. (Humanity was designed. Why do humans fear their creations? Given the Makers of Worlds.)
So from what my lawyers told me, if the picture of the Mona Lisa is just the painting, head on, cropped to the edge of the canvas, with no real modification, it won’t be copyrighted because there would be no way to tell the difference between it and any similar photo. But if the photo had other elements, like for example a crowd standing in front of the painting, then that could be copyrightable.
Interesting follow-up video. While this is of course only relevant to USA copyright and other countries work completely differently, especially since America is one of the few countries where copyright actually has to be actively registered, it is interesting and relevant to how AI-generated imagery is seen in other places too. As to "if it isn't public, it's not public domain", one problem with AI generated images is that you still can't copyright an exact copy of it without significant creative changes. Why? Because someone else could technically and unbeknownst to you generate the exact same image that is (currently) not copyrightable. If a copyright was granted to an image that had no significant changes made, and it was found it was based on an AI image, that copyright should be revoked. Importantly, AI image generators don't create anything or add anything creative. They can only generate an image from a finite set of possible latent images that are based on statistical models created from the training set. Even if you use your own image in a prompt, it is actually not using that image itself or including it in its mathematical model, except as a replacement for the random noise cloud that it uses by default to generate an image from. It is the same process as when you select an image to seed a new generation of images. The resulting image is still one of the latent images purely derived from the mathematical and statistical model of the training set images. It does not add any creativity that generates copyright even if the image you use as a prompt was yours. The non-copyrightability is akin to zooming in on the mandelbrot set, and though you may have found a piece of it no one else has looked at before, you still can't copyright the elements in the image that are reproducible by someone else using the same mathematical formula. The set of possible images in a particular model is finite. No image is unique but infinitely reproducible. The prompt is not what creates an image that otherwise would not have existed, but what, combined with random seeds, simply finds a coordinate in the multidimensional system of latent images. Any image can be recreated once you know the coordinates. But, and this is of course going to be the big topic in upcoming lawsuits, since AI image generators can _only_ generate 100% derivative images of the training set, doesn't that mean that they are also, by the very definition of how it works, infringing the copyright of all the copyrighted images that went into the training set? Certainly there are many latent images an AI can generate that will be infringing on trademarks, character copyrights, or that will have such a similarity to an original copyrighted image that a court would usually rule infringement if they had a case in isolation where those images were compared, regardless of the method that went into their creation, but since you can argue that _all_ images are derivative, the only possible legal argument would be fair use, and that is going to be a difficult argument to win with if the court actually understands how the images are generated. Since even most users of AI's don't understand how it works, they could just as easily base their verdicts on misunderstandings. It will be interesting to see how legislation and case law deals with these issues, and how the current batch of lawsuits pan out.
Good breakdown of some of the other issues this technology raises. I'm hoping those lawsuits wrt training on copyrighted data get resolved soon, having a decision on that allow for a more clean picture of how the US copyright office will rule in a bunch of related copyright situations. Regardless of how they decide things, knowing at least what they believe will be helpful when it comes to planning the sorts of art you decide to make and the tools you use.
@@ArtOfSoulburn There are indeed many things that need to be resolved, certainly before one should consider using any indiscriminate data-scrape AI for commercial purposes.
in terms of money for testing the copyright office, you could always start a crowdfunding project. Come up with a budget based on how many images you'd be submitting. But since it's a case-by-case basis, even then, we might not get a definitive answer, only an approximate probability.
Actually, the rich part would be less about the cost of submitting the artwork and more so I could retire early and then have the time to make all of those images. But my day job means I have a limited amount of time for such experiments. :) But yes, it still wouldn't be 100%, but an approximate probability I think would still be super helpful.
I doubt even an approximate probability - in correlation what was submitted - would be the result. The outcome would depend more on which combination of Copyright Claims Officers, Support Assistants, Attorney-Advisors, etc. get the case and in what mood they are in. If you submit your 'art' on a Tuesday you might get the opposite result of what if you would have submitted it on Monday. The result also depends on how big, respectable is the applicant: for the same 'artwork' Thisney Co. or the Respected & Feared Huge Copyright Law Firm would get a copyright but John Doe from Nowhereville (with his first and only application) would not. The Office will never admit this, they don't have to, it is not done deliberately, they just feel it in their guts. ...it would be much more interesting to test this, btw. (I know a graphics designer whose success rate changed a lot after he decided to use the services of on expensive copyright lawyer, and he did not become a better artist :-) All this would ruin the scientific approach of any testing, because the content of the 'masterpiece' is only the nth factor. In addition to the above there can be anytime a major shift in how this question is generally perceived depending on a newspaper article, reactions triggered by a previous problematic case, change of leader. Copyright law is an unreliable mess, it is naive to approach such things scientifically.
I think this is a situation where the Copyright Office needs to create strong affirmative examples of what IS copyrightable, because if people want to invest their time and effort into building up a brand that involves some AI contributions, and then once they are really rolling and invested the Copyright office goes "nah, that's not Copyrightable," that would be disastrous.
To obtain the STRONGEST copyright claim, include LOTS of creative authorship in your works. If your works have to include AI-generative contributions, they should only include a very limited amount that you can clearly identify in your copyright registration applications. Otherwise, you’ll have a weak (aka a “thin”) registered copyright that may not offer you any legal protection against copyright infringers. Keep this in mind: If you accused me of infringing one of your works, and I learned that it was (partially) created by AI, my copyright attorney will AGGRESSIVELY go after your copyright claim, arguing your AI-engine created most or all of your work + you *knowingly* skipped including the FULL extent of your AI contribution in your copyright registration application, thus, you don’t have a valid copyright (legal standing) to sue me. The US Copyright Office provides examples of copyrightable authorship via its info “Circulars” www.copyright.gov/circs/circular-update-guide.pdf and via its “Compendium” (3rd ed.).
It's about time that they protected artists. Thanks for this! It's raising awareness. I've been to Bluewillow and I saw that some of the arts used was from some artist that I know!
There is a phrase it goes like this -"Easy comes easy goes. Learn to make your own images with no AI, making art is a spiritual exercise and can be an enlightening experience. AI art is just a path to nowhere when it's gone you will stand there naked in the cold, there is no golden pot at the end of that rainbow.
Hi Neil: For next time, you’re encouraged to invite one or more of your copyright/IP attorney (friends) to sit for a live Q&A session, as that would provide you and your subscribers more definitive (non-legal) answers. Go Habs & DDO!
Playing devil's advocate to your suggestion that an AI generated image with a character would necessarily have the character public domain, I think there is room for that not to be the case and that it likely won't be. My reasoning is based around the idea that the design of the character could be argued to be a human undertaking in the design of the prompt. While the guidance suggests that the AI generated image can't be copyrighted due to most of the creative undertakings by non-human and that the prompt is insufficient input I do not imagine that would hold for the character. After all as you state yourself in this video, "[a] written description of a character can be registered for copyright." I think there is a fair argument to be made that the initial prompt used may be sufficient to copyright the character even if the resultant image is not copyrightable as a piece of art. In order to hammer home my points on this let me give a few examples to illustrate. Firstly suppose we had a written description of a character which met the criteria to be copyrightable, but before copyrighting the text we used it to generate an AI image in order to check that it lined up with our mental conception of the character. Do you suppose that the existence of the AI art should then invalidate the copyrightability of the initial text description? Alternately suppose we were in the same situation, but instead you were commissioning an artist to draw the piece. Typically you would expect that you would retain the character copyright, while the artist would retain the copyright for the composition of the piece, no? If yes, how would using AI rather than an artist fundamentally alter this dynamic such as to invalidate the character copyright?
Thanks for doing these. I'm curious how businesses will react to this rather than individual artists like us. For example imagine a game Dev company makes a game and uses generative ai all through the concept process to make 2D concepts but the game that is released is a 3D game and the public never see the 2D concepts that helped inform the creation of the 3D art. So is that still allowed? Basically can people make other art based purely on AI generated concepts? I think this is the big question for video game concept artists.
Hey man I'm curious if you had an opinion on this particular scenario: If you write a book and create a distinctive character through publishing your book (like harry potter). That character would be a copyrightable character correct? So then if you generate an AI image in the likeness of that character use exact descriptive language from your book would that then make them copyrightable? Thank you!
I still find it important to steer use from generators such as midjourney and SB to ethical generators soon to come. And somehow compensate as many artists as possible if their work is found within the unethical generators.
about Adobe Firefly - Adobe's claim on ethical sourcing royalty free and art used with permission is questionable, and isn't the full picture. (they basically found legal loopholes). unfortunately, I can't remember the details right now, but definitely look into it yourself too.
@@pixelpuppy So I heard the same story, but then had trouble finding any credible source on the issue. The main story was Adobe changed their Eula without letting people know, then released the model before anyone could remove their content. That's a little hard to believe, because even though 99.9% of us don't read eulas, some people do, and I would suspect they would have sounded the alarm the moment it happened. I've also tried reaching out to friends who have adobe stock for sale and haven't heard back. So if you are able to find a good source of info on what actually happened with plenty of dates, the exact eula change, etc, I'd love to read it.
@@pixelpuppy Thank you, I shall look into this! In the mean time let's try to educate people as well. (I'm sure your already doing this but just for sure)
No... I wouldn't because USA Copyright Law is not that simple. But humans treat AI Tech far different than their own biological flesh. Since I exceed machines. This era still has a very long way to go.
on your issue #2, a simple solution for people being dishonest about this is to force the underlying company that offers the software to submit every image that gets generated to a repository which the copyright office can check against.
There's been discussion of that, but it's likely within the year the majority of people will have access to desktop ais that will generate the images at home.
If you generate and sell A.I. Art there is no way for anyone to know it’s A.I. Art. So, the chances that someone takes it and uses it themselves is very slim.
I am curious how they would handle the new MJ “describe”. If I use MJ descriptions of my original image to generate new images, is that still considered a variation like your robot example or is it now considered just a regularly prompted generated image?
Yup, that would be an excellent test to try and see what the office thinks. Personally I think there's going to be so many variations and ways to include AI as part of your process I have no idea how they are going to develop a consistent system for judging yes and no. It might end up being very arbitrary, which would be a disaster. Others think we should just do away with copyright, but if I invent a character and put it in a children's book, and a giant corporation copies that character with no legal recourse and makes a billion $, I'd forsee doing away with copyright leading to the rich companies just getting richer. Even in the best circumstances, I see the future being a big mess.
@@ArtOfSoulburn It's rather simple. Generated AI Art is not the same as Assisted AI Art / Full Control AI Art. Randomly generated pictures of a candy bar would be as the policy states. But... If you're using Assist AI which is a complex pencil to design infinite space, then that is your art and yours alone. The video game industry is very accustomed to how tech evolves. Unlike most other artistic industries.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 Actually it's not as simple as that. If you use an image prompt, the resulting image is still not using the data from that image as part of the generated images (it doesn't become part of the AI's model), but those are still generated from the data in the model. Just like when you select an image to make it create new images based on that, any image prompts from a user's own images are only a replacement for the random noise cloud that is used as a starting point for the algorithm. The end result will still technically be possible to generate in other ways with other prompts, or just knowing the latent image's "coordinates" in the model. It may feel like a unique image generated from your own creativity, but in fact it is still a derivation on the images in the training set as abstracted into the mathematical model.
@@hakonsoreide Depends on the software. Neural Networks functions like that, so each generated image is unique based on the Data it tries to "remember" when generating it. Such software can be as simple as a google search to as complex as a 3d simulation of reality. Sadly, I think people heavily misunderstand how Neural Networks work because it doesn't actually store pictures in its data base. But non copyright protected aspects under American Law. Such as (in code version) shading, texture, color, lines, and form etc. Assist AI is a bit more involving for users since it's more of a high tech model creator than a model generator. Especially for filler content when making massive worlds in 3d space. In regard to USA Copyright Law... Well... I know it's rather complex but we live in world of emotion and idiocy given how our government acted toward both Facebook and Tik Tok in the hearings. And artists do not fully know USA Copyright Law. It sort of depends because these subjects are heavily nuanced and not a blanket ordeal. Plus... In the prime of technology, I'm afraid every Copyright Law in each nation will not be compatible to the extent it is now. The claims of artists will have no merit upon the rise of cybernetics, bio tech, nano tech, and True AI. (Nothing is new to me but Humanity sure does have a long way to go. Hopefully, their Fate can be avoided.)
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 An image may seem unique, but since it is a finite set, albeit a ridiculously large one, there will be more than one way of generating the exact same image, which one could argue makes it not unique. The problem with the image storage argument often used by the AI companies themselves is that a mathematical model that can generate an almost identical copy of a copyrighted image, even if no pixels are exactly the same, if the image is based on the other and almost looks indistinguishable, I think a court would and should argue one was derived from the other with no significant changes and that the copyright in the original image applies. Otherwise one could simply modify an image slightly in colour and contrast, run it through a fractal compression algorithm, double check that no two pixels were the same and claim a new work was created. The mathematical model generated from an image is in itself a derivative work. It will indeed be interesting to see what happens next, how this kind of algorithmic image generation will be interpreted in various jurisdictions, and indeed also what future iterations of the same ideas will change the game. At the moment, the generation tools that limit their training sets to public domain and/or properly licensed images will have an edge since at least there will be no uncertainty about the legality of their use.
i think there should be some way to limit use of copyrighted material in training as well as prompting. but i dont know how realistic that is, to achieve or police without doing it totalitarian. even trained on non copyrighted content ai is super powerful and imo should be embraced by all artists as there are a lot of tools that are not related to generating completely new content, but rather detail tweaking and smart masking
Here's one: what if I take my original painting, use it to generate 15 variations of it, and then photobash elements from those 15 variations back into the original painting? what now??!
I'd suspect this could be copyrighted, since your use of photobashing could be considered copyrightable because composition is a sign of human expression.
How would this affect Video created with AI? For example An animated series with original non- trademarked characters? I developed a technique that enables me generate rather coherent animation from even a single prompt. It's an industry game changer...83% complete
As far as I know they will treat video Ai the same way they handle stills and text, not copyrightable unless you make big changes to the AI produced result.
@6:08 again you can copyright things about a character, but the character itself is only copyrightable as a derivative copyright. By itself, a character can't be copyrighted.
If a person can paint exactly same quality as the AI generated image, then it kind of defeat the purpose of making things faster using AI. Plus copying one to one is also a skill high enough that he doesn't even need to use AI. People use AI cause either they don't have enough skill or just want to get result faster.
Yes and no. It's like rapid brainstorming of ideas, creating a mood board. But at a much faster rate, with more accurate clarity. It's still not gonna make the *exact* image you want anyway, especially if it doesn't match your own art style.
I have a friend who is a painter, who uses AI to create images that then he uses as sketches for his paintings. So no, not all people that uses AI is because "they don't have enough skill or just want to get result faster."
@@pixelpuppy If you watched the video, it said about painting exactly as the AI image and not as a mood board or sketch or reference to get a copyright.
@@tgonzalezcrespo Your friend use it as a reference or sketch, not copying the exact one to one. Many usually use AI and just photo edit on top of it to get fast result.
So I have an image that I edited together from 3 seperate ai generated images (all generated based on the same prompt image) and then I've painted over parts of it to fix errors (such as the hands, the eyes, hair, and neck) What I'm understanding is, I can't copyright the original images I used to edit together this final image, but I CAN copyright this final image because of the editing and painting over I did?
Yes, assuming you've painted over it enough to make the copyright office feel you've contributed. If you just fix the hands, I suspect that won't be enough, but the more you change and augment, the better you chances they'll give you copyright.
@@ArtOfSoulburn well thankfully I'm not looking to actually get copyright for this particular image. I'm just using it to practice hands and shading XD I find it very funny how ai can get hands close to hands but not quite and its pretty good practice to take the shapes it produces and make them look actually like hands. Thank you for your feedback! It's good to know whats considered enough creative change to qualify for a copyright
@@mjt1517 For anything I make direct money off of. For example, I made two art books, and both of them are officially copyrighted. But it's true, you don't need to go through the office to have at least minimal copyright protection, but then if someone copies you your case isn't as strong.
For Public Domain Works... Because American Courts are not always about the law (litigation Hell being a thing). Disney is a prime example of how grey some Public Domain Works are. But over all, Public Domain is as you explained it. Personally, AI Art shouldn't be Public Domain because that's assuming every AI Tech was both designed and to function in the same "prompting" fashion. Still... This Policy is as I stated before. It's not well articulate and leaves too much room for interpretation rather than for a legal procedure. (I guess mankind will learn this the hard way. I'm already eternities beyond this cosmic infinitum.)
Something to consider is the possibility that AI might become more accessible in the future. The biggest models with the broadest models may require supercomputers, but what if someone was able to get the results they want with a smaller model and pool of data? What if they designed their application to yield a specific kind of result? The output would still have an element of randomness, but it wouldn't be completely devoid of human intent. The law shouldn't be written in a way that assumes that the only AI there ever will be will be something like OpenAI's services.
The reason your original video was so popular is because you're the only person who seems to care about the legality of the issue. Many have spoken about the economic, ethical and moral implications, but they seem to take for granted that paying for software that essentially makes "some version" of what you're going for makes you an artist, even in the eyes of the law, which interestingly, seems contrary to reality
Well I'm happy to bring awareness to an angle on the subject that people aren't talking about enough. The ability to copyright artwork is one of the main engines that allows people to profit off of artwork, both individual artists and big companies. So to me, understanding how that engine works, especially in these days of change, is a topic worth knowing about.
@@ArtOfSoulburn Cosmic wise... All Copyright Laws in every nation is not as strong as it is now. Humanity was designed. Once human existence can be replicated. Then we will have this talk in 3 exact times in the far future. ... If humans do not end prematurely on Earth...
Ok big question, the ONLY THING I WANT TO KNOW. If i create a colored drawing using shit cheap markers and pens, use ai to turn it into a 3d model (much like ANY 3D SOFTWARE) then sell it on etsy, is this OK. Im holding my breath on this i have a LOT of ideas
No. It doesn't matter how you prompt the image. The traditional functions of the author are not being done by you, the human, they are being done by the machine. Here is the thing, the US copyright office requires authorship for something to be copy-writable. Legally in the US, only humans can be authors. This understanding is actually derived from wording found in the constitution. The thing is, traditional 3D software isnt using AI for the artistic process. Making 3D images is in many ways similar to sculpting with clay, and in fact one of the newer approaches for 3D modeling is to let the artist use digital tools to literally sculpt digital clay.
@Henri Tuhola I will take the most popular ai generated stuff that people are so willing to share and bluntly put it on the online stores to sell as prints. For as long as there is no law protecting ai generated images ai creators can suck my dick
Yes, how do you know something is AI generated or not? Also, are you making big bucks from art right now? If not, how do you plan to profit from other people's art if you can't profit from your own? Are you skilled in marketing merchandise? Do you have an audience of art buyers waiting to buy something you saved an image of?
You did an amazing job explaining something that is so complicated and confusing but also very relevant right now in both videos. That’s why it got so popular (even if you’re not a lawyer 🤓). Very good job 👏
Well thanks, glad you found my explanations easy to follow, that's my goal even if I don't always succeed :)
@@ArtOfSoulburn thanks man you video is fair
Regarding character images being characters: "A drawing, picture, depiction, or written description of a character can be registered for copyright. Protection does not, however, extend to... the general idea or name for characters depicted, or their intangible attributes." -United States Copyright Office
I did a project on this topic back when the first video was released and it was the most extensive and accessible resource at the time! Thanks for the effort you put in :)
Thanks mark, glad you found it helpful!
I'm just hoping there will be way to make it a fair playing field for independent artists and not just those in a company.
Thanks for covering a part 2, even as a non expert the video is very insightful and interesting to listen to. You really called out some unique questions in this one that I have never considered and some insight on existing policies that I never even knew 😆. I suppose at the end of the day the boundaries will be pushed and tested by those more adventurous, I'm very curious to see how it all plays out. Great video! Happy to see more of your educational art videos again.
Thanks, glad you found it interesting. And yes, when you really start thinking of all the possibilities and exceptions to the rules, it can be mind boggling. This world is gonna get extra crazy.
@@ArtOfSoulburn
It's rather simple, honestly. To me at least. Not to mankind, sadly.
Unfortunately, the AI Tech in question is but one style. I have seen the others and it is beyond simple prompting.
The Matrix Equation, my many creations, is an omni machine which can count and recreate existence down to the fine details. Many other entities have designed their own... ... ...
I say this because it is the path in which Humanity will soon walk upon.
(Humanity was designed. Why do humans fear their creations? Given the Makers of Worlds.)
One thing people often miss is that while the Mona Lisa may not be copyrighted - the photograph itself of the Mona Lisa may be.
So from what my lawyers told me, if the picture of the Mona Lisa is just the painting, head on, cropped to the edge of the canvas, with no real modification, it won’t be copyrighted because there would be no way to tell the difference between it and any similar photo. But if the photo had other elements, like for example a crowd standing in front of the painting, then that could be copyrightable.
@@ArtOfSoulburn that's a good point.
Interesting follow-up video. While this is of course only relevant to USA copyright and other countries work completely differently, especially since America is one of the few countries where copyright actually has to be actively registered, it is interesting and relevant to how AI-generated imagery is seen in other places too.
As to "if it isn't public, it's not public domain", one problem with AI generated images is that you still can't copyright an exact copy of it without significant creative changes. Why? Because someone else could technically and unbeknownst to you generate the exact same image that is (currently) not copyrightable. If a copyright was granted to an image that had no significant changes made, and it was found it was based on an AI image, that copyright should be revoked.
Importantly, AI image generators don't create anything or add anything creative. They can only generate an image from a finite set of possible latent images that are based on statistical models created from the training set. Even if you use your own image in a prompt, it is actually not using that image itself or including it in its mathematical model, except as a replacement for the random noise cloud that it uses by default to generate an image from. It is the same process as when you select an image to seed a new generation of images. The resulting image is still one of the latent images purely derived from the mathematical and statistical model of the training set images. It does not add any creativity that generates copyright even if the image you use as a prompt was yours.
The non-copyrightability is akin to zooming in on the mandelbrot set, and though you may have found a piece of it no one else has looked at before, you still can't copyright the elements in the image that are reproducible by someone else using the same mathematical formula. The set of possible images in a particular model is finite. No image is unique but infinitely reproducible. The prompt is not what creates an image that otherwise would not have existed, but what, combined with random seeds, simply finds a coordinate in the multidimensional system of latent images. Any image can be recreated once you know the coordinates.
But, and this is of course going to be the big topic in upcoming lawsuits, since AI image generators can _only_ generate 100% derivative images of the training set, doesn't that mean that they are also, by the very definition of how it works, infringing the copyright of all the copyrighted images that went into the training set? Certainly there are many latent images an AI can generate that will be infringing on trademarks, character copyrights, or that will have such a similarity to an original copyrighted image that a court would usually rule infringement if they had a case in isolation where those images were compared, regardless of the method that went into their creation, but since you can argue that _all_ images are derivative, the only possible legal argument would be fair use, and that is going to be a difficult argument to win with if the court actually understands how the images are generated. Since even most users of AI's don't understand how it works, they could just as easily base their verdicts on misunderstandings.
It will be interesting to see how legislation and case law deals with these issues, and how the current batch of lawsuits pan out.
Good breakdown of some of the other issues this technology raises. I'm hoping those lawsuits wrt training on copyrighted data get resolved soon, having a decision on that allow for a more clean picture of how the US copyright office will rule in a bunch of related copyright situations. Regardless of how they decide things, knowing at least what they believe will be helpful when it comes to planning the sorts of art you decide to make and the tools you use.
@@ArtOfSoulburn There are indeed many things that need to be resolved, certainly before one should consider using any indiscriminate data-scrape AI for commercial purposes.
in terms of money for testing the copyright office, you could always start a crowdfunding project. Come up with a budget based on how many images you'd be submitting.
But since it's a case-by-case basis, even then, we might not get a definitive answer, only an approximate probability.
Actually, the rich part would be less about the cost of submitting the artwork and more so I could retire early and then have the time to make all of those images. But my day job means I have a limited amount of time for such experiments. :) But yes, it still wouldn't be 100%, but an approximate probability I think would still be super helpful.
I doubt even an approximate probability - in correlation what was submitted - would be the result. The outcome would depend more on which combination of Copyright Claims Officers, Support Assistants, Attorney-Advisors, etc. get the case and in what mood they are in. If you submit your 'art' on a Tuesday you might get the opposite result of what if you would have submitted it on Monday. The result also depends on how big, respectable is the applicant: for the same 'artwork' Thisney Co. or the Respected & Feared Huge Copyright Law Firm would get a copyright but John Doe from Nowhereville (with his first and only application) would not. The Office will never admit this, they don't have to, it is not done deliberately, they just feel it in their guts. ...it would be much more interesting to test this, btw. (I know a graphics designer whose success rate changed a lot after he decided to use the services of on expensive copyright lawyer, and he did not become a better artist :-)
All this would ruin the scientific approach of any testing, because the content of the 'masterpiece' is only the nth factor.
In addition to the above there can be anytime a major shift in how this question is generally perceived depending on a newspaper article, reactions triggered by a previous problematic case, change of leader. Copyright law is an unreliable mess, it is naive to approach such things scientifically.
I think this is a situation where the Copyright Office needs to create strong affirmative examples of what IS copyrightable, because if people want to invest their time and effort into building up a brand that involves some AI contributions, and then once they are really rolling and invested the Copyright office goes "nah, that's not Copyrightable," that would be disastrous.
Freedom of information means it’s communist now. No? Whatever you make is everyone’s 😅
Or you could just hire an artist, no ambiguity about copyright there
To obtain the STRONGEST copyright claim, include LOTS of creative authorship in your works.
If your works have to include AI-generative contributions, they should only include a very limited amount that you can clearly identify in your copyright registration applications. Otherwise, you’ll have a weak (aka a “thin”) registered copyright that may not offer you any legal protection against copyright infringers.
Keep this in mind: If you accused me of infringing one of your works, and I learned that it was (partially) created by AI, my copyright attorney will AGGRESSIVELY go after your copyright claim, arguing your AI-engine created most or all of your work + you *knowingly* skipped including the FULL extent of your AI contribution in your copyright registration application, thus, you don’t have a valid copyright (legal standing) to sue me.
The US Copyright Office provides examples of copyrightable authorship via its info “Circulars” www.copyright.gov/circs/circular-update-guide.pdf and via its “Compendium” (3rd ed.).
It's about time that they protected artists. Thanks for this! It's raising awareness. I've been to Bluewillow and I saw that some of the arts used was from some artist that I know!
There is a phrase it goes like this -"Easy comes easy goes. Learn to make your own images with no AI, making art is a spiritual exercise and can be an enlightening experience. AI art is just a path to nowhere when it's gone you will stand there naked in the cold, there is no golden pot at the end of that rainbow.
Hi Neil: For next time, you’re encouraged to invite one or more of your copyright/IP attorney (friends) to sit for a live Q&A session, as that would provide you and your subscribers more definitive (non-legal) answers.
Go Habs & DDO!
Thanks you Neil, as always amazing deep researches! Always inspired and learning from your workflows since back years ago 👏
Thanks, glad you've found my workflows helpful!
Playing devil's advocate to your suggestion that an AI generated image with a character would necessarily have the character public domain, I think there is room for that not to be the case and that it likely won't be. My reasoning is based around the idea that the design of the character could be argued to be a human undertaking in the design of the prompt. While the guidance suggests that the AI generated image can't be copyrighted due to most of the creative undertakings by non-human and that the prompt is insufficient input I do not imagine that would hold for the character. After all as you state yourself in this video, "[a] written description of a character can be registered for copyright." I think there is a fair argument to be made that the initial prompt used may be sufficient to copyright the character even if the resultant image is not copyrightable as a piece of art. In order to hammer home my points on this let me give a few examples to illustrate. Firstly suppose we had a written description of a character which met the criteria to be copyrightable, but before copyrighting the text we used it to generate an AI image in order to check that it lined up with our mental conception of the character. Do you suppose that the existence of the AI art should then invalidate the copyrightability of the initial text description? Alternately suppose we were in the same situation, but instead you were commissioning an artist to draw the piece. Typically you would expect that you would retain the character copyright, while the artist would retain the copyright for the composition of the piece, no? If yes, how would using AI rather than an artist fundamentally alter this dynamic such as to invalidate the character copyright?
Thanks for doing these. I'm curious how businesses will react to this rather than individual artists like us. For example imagine a game Dev company makes a game and uses generative ai all through the concept process to make 2D concepts but the game that is released is a 3D game and the public never see the 2D concepts that helped inform the creation of the 3D art. So is that still allowed? Basically can people make other art based purely on AI generated concepts? I think this is the big question for video game concept artists.
Hey man I'm curious if you had an opinion on this particular scenario:
If you write a book and create a distinctive character through publishing your book (like harry potter). That character would be a copyrightable character correct? So then if you generate an AI image in the likeness of that character use exact descriptive language from your book would that then make them copyrightable?
Thank you!
I still find it important to steer use from generators such as midjourney and SB to ethical generators soon to come.
And somehow compensate as many artists as possible if their work is found within the unethical generators.
No disagreement here. That will be resolved with those 2 court cases, which I hope reach their conclusion as quickly as possible.
about Adobe Firefly - Adobe's claim on ethical sourcing royalty free and art used with permission is questionable, and isn't the full picture. (they basically found legal loopholes).
unfortunately, I can't remember the details right now, but definitely look into it yourself too.
@@pixelpuppy So I heard the same story, but then had trouble finding any credible source on the issue. The main story was Adobe changed their Eula without letting people know, then released the model before anyone could remove their content. That's a little hard to believe, because even though 99.9% of us don't read eulas, some people do, and I would suspect they would have sounded the alarm the moment it happened. I've also tried reaching out to friends who have adobe stock for sale and haven't heard back. So if you are able to find a good source of info on what actually happened with plenty of dates, the exact eula change, etc, I'd love to read it.
@@pixelpuppy Thank you, I shall look into this!
In the mean time let's try to educate people as well. (I'm sure your already doing this but just for sure)
No... I wouldn't because USA Copyright Law is not that simple.
But humans treat AI Tech far different than their own biological flesh.
Since I exceed machines. This era still has a very long way to go.
Wait, you have lawyer friends? My whole estimation of you... ;-)
Haha! Yes, I have lawyer friends. They're super helpful when it comes to dealing with copyright issues, and many of them are also nice people :)
on your issue #2, a simple solution for people being dishonest about this is to force the underlying company that offers the software to submit every image that gets generated to a repository which the copyright office can check against.
There's been discussion of that, but it's likely within the year the majority of people will have access to desktop ais that will generate the images at home.
If you generate and sell A.I. Art there is no way for anyone to know it’s A.I. Art. So, the chances that someone takes it and uses it themselves is very slim.
I am curious how they would handle the new MJ “describe”. If I use MJ descriptions of my original image to generate new images, is that still considered a variation like your robot example or is it now considered just a regularly prompted generated image?
Yup, that would be an excellent test to try and see what the office thinks. Personally I think there's going to be so many variations and ways to include AI as part of your process I have no idea how they are going to develop a consistent system for judging yes and no. It might end up being very arbitrary, which would be a disaster. Others think we should just do away with copyright, but if I invent a character and put it in a children's book, and a giant corporation copies that character with no legal recourse and makes a billion $, I'd forsee doing away with copyright leading to the rich companies just getting richer. Even in the best circumstances, I see the future being a big mess.
@@ArtOfSoulburn
It's rather simple.
Generated AI Art is not the same as Assisted AI Art / Full Control AI Art.
Randomly generated pictures of a candy bar would be as the policy states.
But... If you're using Assist AI which is a complex pencil to design infinite space, then that is your art and yours alone.
The video game industry is very accustomed to how tech evolves. Unlike most other artistic industries.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 Actually it's not as simple as that. If you use an image prompt, the resulting image is still not using the data from that image as part of the generated images (it doesn't become part of the AI's model), but those are still generated from the data in the model. Just like when you select an image to make it create new images based on that, any image prompts from a user's own images are only a replacement for the random noise cloud that is used as a starting point for the algorithm. The end result will still technically be possible to generate in other ways with other prompts, or just knowing the latent image's "coordinates" in the model. It may feel like a unique image generated from your own creativity, but in fact it is still a derivation on the images in the training set as abstracted into the mathematical model.
@@hakonsoreide
Depends on the software. Neural Networks functions like that, so each generated image is unique based on the Data it tries to "remember" when generating it. Such software can be as simple as a google search to as complex as a 3d simulation of reality.
Sadly, I think people heavily misunderstand how Neural Networks work because it doesn't actually store pictures in its data base. But non copyright protected aspects under American Law. Such as (in code version) shading, texture, color, lines, and form etc.
Assist AI is a bit more involving for users since it's more of a high tech model creator than a model generator. Especially for filler content when making massive worlds in 3d space.
In regard to USA Copyright Law... Well... I know it's rather complex but we live in world of emotion and idiocy given how our government acted toward both Facebook and Tik Tok in the hearings. And artists do not fully know USA Copyright Law.
It sort of depends because these subjects are heavily nuanced and not a blanket ordeal.
Plus... In the prime of technology, I'm afraid every Copyright Law in each nation will not be compatible to the extent it is now. The claims of artists will have no merit upon the rise of cybernetics, bio tech, nano tech, and True AI.
(Nothing is new to me but Humanity sure does have a long way to go. Hopefully, their Fate can be avoided.)
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 An image may seem unique, but since it is a finite set, albeit a ridiculously large one, there will be more than one way of generating the exact same image, which one could argue makes it not unique.
The problem with the image storage argument often used by the AI companies themselves is that a mathematical model that can generate an almost identical copy of a copyrighted image, even if no pixels are exactly the same, if the image is based on the other and almost looks indistinguishable, I think a court would and should argue one was derived from the other with no significant changes and that the copyright in the original image applies.
Otherwise one could simply modify an image slightly in colour and contrast, run it through a fractal compression algorithm, double check that no two pixels were the same and claim a new work was created.
The mathematical model generated from an image is in itself a derivative work.
It will indeed be interesting to see what happens next, how this kind of algorithmic image generation will be interpreted in various jurisdictions, and indeed also what future iterations of the same ideas will change the game.
At the moment, the generation tools that limit their training sets to public domain and/or properly licensed images will have an edge since at least there will be no uncertainty about the legality of their use.
i think there should be some way to limit use of copyrighted material in training as well as prompting. but i dont know how realistic that is, to achieve or police without doing it totalitarian. even trained on non copyrighted content ai is super powerful and imo should be embraced by all artists as there are a lot of tools that are not related to generating completely new content, but rather detail tweaking and smart masking
Here's one: what if I take my original painting, use it to generate 15 variations of it, and then photobash elements from those 15 variations back into the original painting? what now??!
I'd suspect this could be copyrighted, since your use of photobashing could be considered copyrightable because composition is a sign of human expression.
thats a good point what if you feed your original artworks and it remasters your work based on only your data.
@@thedesignertoydragon6807 Here's an idea...just don't disclose that it was generated.
Neil, can I include this is a blog article with credit of course? Thank you.
You don't have to ask permission to embed a YT video that has embedding turned on. The permission is already given because of that feature.
How would this affect Video created with AI? For example An animated series with original non- trademarked characters? I developed a technique that enables me generate rather coherent animation from even a single prompt. It's an industry game changer...83% complete
As far as I know they will treat video Ai the same way they handle stills and text, not copyrightable unless you make big changes to the AI produced result.
@6:08 again you can copyright things about a character, but the character itself is only copyrightable as a derivative copyright. By itself, a character can't be copyrighted.
If a person can paint exactly same quality as the AI generated image, then it kind of defeat the purpose of making things faster using AI. Plus copying one to one is also a skill high enough that he doesn't even need to use AI. People use AI cause either they don't have enough skill or just want to get result faster.
Indeed. I'd say at that point why not simply paint it yourself?
Yes and no. It's like rapid brainstorming of ideas, creating a mood board. But at a much faster rate, with more accurate clarity. It's still not gonna make the *exact* image you want anyway, especially if it doesn't match your own art style.
I have a friend who is a painter, who uses AI to create images that then he uses as sketches for his paintings. So no, not all people that uses AI is because "they don't have enough skill or just want to get result faster."
@@pixelpuppy If you watched the video, it said about painting exactly as the AI image and not as a mood board or sketch or reference to get a copyright.
@@tgonzalezcrespo Your friend use it as a reference or sketch, not copying the exact one to one. Many usually use AI and just photo edit on top of it to get fast result.
So I have an image that I edited together from 3 seperate ai generated images (all generated based on the same prompt image) and then I've painted over parts of it to fix errors (such as the hands, the eyes, hair, and neck)
What I'm understanding is, I can't copyright the original images I used to edit together this final image, but I CAN copyright this final image because of the editing and painting over I did?
Yes, assuming you've painted over it enough to make the copyright office feel you've contributed. If you just fix the hands, I suspect that won't be enough, but the more you change and augment, the better you chances they'll give you copyright.
@@ArtOfSoulburn well thankfully I'm not looking to actually get copyright for this particular image. I'm just using it to practice hands and shading XD I find it very funny how ai can get hands close to hands but not quite and its pretty good practice to take the shapes it produces and make them look actually like hands.
Thank you for your feedback! It's good to know whats considered enough creative change to qualify for a copyright
Do you actually submit your work to the copyright office?
@@mjt1517 For anything I make direct money off of. For example, I made two art books, and both of them are officially copyrighted. But it's true, you don't need to go through the office to have at least minimal copyright protection, but then if someone copies you your case isn't as strong.
thank you
the copyright claims board began 2022 as help for illustration artists..
.
For Public Domain Works... Because American Courts are not always about the law (litigation Hell being a thing). Disney is a prime example of how grey some Public Domain Works are. But over all, Public Domain is as you explained it.
Personally, AI Art shouldn't be Public Domain because that's assuming every AI Tech was both designed and to function in the same "prompting" fashion.
Still... This Policy is as I stated before. It's not well articulate and leaves too much room for interpretation rather than for a legal procedure.
(I guess mankind will learn this the hard way. I'm already eternities beyond this cosmic infinitum.)
Something to consider is the possibility that AI might become more accessible in the future. The biggest models with the broadest models may require supercomputers, but what if someone was able to get the results they want with a smaller model and pool of data? What if they designed their application to yield a specific kind of result? The output would still have an element of randomness, but it wouldn't be completely devoid of human intent.
The law shouldn't be written in a way that assumes that the only AI there ever will be will be something like OpenAI's services.
So basically, anything we make on AI generators cant be copyrighted, which means people can use your work and profit from it
Nice job!
The reason your original video was so popular is because you're the only person who seems to care about the legality of the issue. Many have spoken about the economic, ethical and moral implications, but they seem to take for granted that paying for software that essentially makes "some version" of what you're going for makes you an artist, even in the eyes of the law, which interestingly, seems contrary to reality
Well I'm happy to bring awareness to an angle on the subject that people aren't talking about enough. The ability to copyright artwork is one of the main engines that allows people to profit off of artwork, both individual artists and big companies. So to me, understanding how that engine works, especially in these days of change, is a topic worth knowing about.
@@ArtOfSoulburn
Cosmic wise... All Copyright Laws in every nation is not as strong as it is now.
Humanity was designed. Once human existence can be replicated. Then we will have this talk in 3 exact times in the far future.
... If humans do not end prematurely on Earth...
As long as copyright exists it's bad.
Absolutely no creation should be able to be licensed, it should be PUBLIC for everyone to use it to advance art and science.
Ok big question, the ONLY THING I WANT TO KNOW.
If i create a colored drawing using shit cheap markers and pens, use ai to turn it into a 3d model (much like ANY 3D SOFTWARE) then sell it on etsy, is this OK. Im holding my breath on this i have a LOT of ideas
No. It doesn't matter how you prompt the image. The traditional functions of the author are not being done by you, the human, they are being done by the machine.
Here is the thing, the US copyright office requires authorship for something to be copy-writable. Legally in the US, only humans can be authors. This understanding is actually derived from wording found in the constitution.
The thing is, traditional 3D software isnt using AI for the artistic process. Making 3D images is in many ways similar to sculpting with clay, and in fact one of the newer approaches for 3D modeling is to let the artist use digital tools to literally sculpt digital clay.
So all the AI created stuff people create , we can steal and sell. On my way to make big $$$ of off these fools
It's not stealing. But how do you distinguish AI generated content?
@Henri Tuhola I will take the most popular ai generated stuff that people are so willing to share and bluntly put it on the online stores to sell as prints. For as long as there is no law protecting ai generated images ai creators can suck my dick
Yes, how do you know something is AI generated or not?
Also, are you making big bucks from art right now? If not, how do you plan to profit from other people's art if you can't profit from your own?
Are you skilled in marketing merchandise? Do you have an audience of art buyers waiting to buy something you saved an image of?
Apparently the Copyright Office's opinion is obsolete.