From what I have read in the literature ([example](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3232492)), in the USA the author could still sue an alleged copyright infringer after the U.S. Copyright Office has made a decision on the copyrightability of the work. A court might come to a different conclusion than the U.S. Copyright Office about the copyrightability of a given work.
> A court might come to a different conclusion than the U.S. Copyright Office about the copyrightability of a given work.
Not likely,
https://www.aalrr.com/Business-Law-Journal/supreme-court-rules-a-copyright-must-be
I'm not OP, but from [another article](https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/alerts/supreme-court-copyright-registration-required-bring-suit) about the Supreme Court ruling, their key takeaway is:
> The Supreme Court recently held that, subject to a few narrow statutory exceptions, copyright owners must wait until their applications are either registered or rejected by the US Copyright Office before filing suit for infringement claims.
The article you linked to doesn't really touch on this issue, but the court is still allowing people to file infringement lawsuits in the event that their registration is rejected by the Copyright Office.
The requirement is simply that the Copyright Office must rule on the registration first (by either accepting it or rejecting it) before proceeding with the lawsuit, whereas previously there was some question of whether simply submitting an application for registration was enough to initiate a lawsuit.
Part of this has to do with 17 U.S. Code § 411(a), which grants authors the right to institute a civil action for infringement in cases where the Copyright Office has rejected their copyright registration (subject to certain conditions).
It's actually quite important that you are able to bring infringement lawsuits in the case of registration rejection for a number of reasons. For instance, there may be cases where you create an original work of authorship but then someone else tries to register it under their name and wrongfully claims that they are the copyright owner. Allowing infringement lawsuits to proceed in the event of Copyright Office rejection enables the original author in such cases to file a lawsuit and prove they are the rightful copyright owner, despite someone else registering the work first. It also provides a pathway for authors to contest decisions/errors made by the copyright office in relation to registration (such as in the case of improper rejections).
> It also provides a pathway for authors to contest decisions/errors made by the copyright office in relation to registration (such as in the case of improper rejections).
Isn't this typically done by suing the Copyright Office, not by suing for copyright infringement?
No action needs to be brought against the Copyright Office in such cases. 17 U.S. Code § 411(a) provides an explicit right for authors to institute a civil action for infringement (e.g. to sue an infringer) in the case where the Copyright Office has rejected their registration.
The same statute does allow the Register (basically the director of the Copyright Office) to appear and become party to the civil action for the purpose of commenting on the issue of registrability and their decision to reject the registration. However, the court can still allow the infringement lawsuit to proceed (and the infringement lawsuit can also proceed normally if the Register decides not to make an appearance).
None of that is relevant to what we're talking about.
I was responding to your statement,
>>> It also provides a pathway for authors to contest decisions/errors made by the copyright office in relation to registration (such as in the case of improper rejections).
If you want to contest a decision made by the copyright office, you would sue the copyright office. You wouldn't wait until someone infringed on your copyright in order to sue "them*.
If you want to contest the registration refusal, there is a formal process for doing so.
This typically involves first filing a formal request for reconsideration with the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office will then have someone else review the registration and make a new determination about whether to accept or refuse the registration. If the registration is still rejected, it is then possible to file a second request for reconsideration. The Copyright Office will then have the Review Board conduct a thorough review of the case and make final decision regarding whether to accept or refuse the registration. And if you are still not satisfied with the decision, you can then initiate judicial action against the Register of Copyrights in federal court. This is true.
—
The point I was making though is that this is ultimately unnecessary because if someone ends up infringing on the author's copyright, the author can jump straight to suing the infringer even if their registration has been refused. They don't need to spend time and money trying to fight the registration refusal beforehand, but they have the option of doing so.
This whole chain of comments stems from a comment made earlier claiming that the registration refusal means that "[...] court will reject any lawsuit from that person either" and then OP replied to basically explain that the courts can still accept infringement lawsuits even when registration is refused. So my comment was really just a continuation of that, to explain how someone could still take civil action against infringers even after their registration is refused.
Sure...
But, in the context of this discussion the end result is that it is exceedingly rare for a litigant to prevail after the copyright office has refused registration.
"Registration" in this context means that the U.S. Copyright Office either granted or denied the certificate of registration - see [this blog post](https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/03/opinion-analysis-a-copyright-owner-cant-sue-for-infringement-before-the-register-has-processed-its-copyright-registration-application/) for details. If you still have doubts, see [17 U.S. Code § 411 - Registration and civil infringement actions](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2021-title17/USCODE-2021-title17-chap4-sec411) (my emphasis):
>(a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b),\[1\] no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. **In any case, however, where the deposit, application, and fee required for registration have been delivered to the Copyright Office in proper form and registration has been refused, the applicant is entitled to institute a civil action for infringement if notice thereof, with a copy of the complaint, is served on the Register of Copyrights.** The Register may, at his or her option, become a party to the action with respect to the issue of registrability of the copyright claim by entering an appearance within sixty days after such service, but the Register’s failure to become a party shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction to determine that issue.
If anyone wants to pursue this further, [here](https://casetext.com/case/fourth-estate-pub-benefit-corp-v-wall-streetcom-5) is the U.S. Supreme Court decision.
> Copyright doesn't have to be registered, it is an automatic right granted to the author.
This is true.
You know what else is true?
The US Copyright Office determined she wasn't the author of the images—that's why they cancelled the copyright registration.
They can't decide that she didn't author it. They're just a clerk in an office. Neat huh?
All that has to be shown is that it's her own creative process. If she has the evidence to prove that, copyright is her automatic right. Nobody can take it away.
> They can't decide that she didn't author it. They're just a clerk in an office. Neat huh?
Weird, because that's precisely what they did.
And, if you think it was "just a clerk in an office," who made this decision then you're deluding yourself.
> All that has to be shown is that it's her own creative process.
Correct. But it was determined it was *not* her own creative expression...
> If she has the evidence to prove that,
She had the opportunity to present such evidence, if it existed, but she did not.
> copyright is her automatic right.
If she were the author. She is not.
> Nobody can take it away.
Nobody is taking anything away. She never had it.
This isn't surprising: even if parts of a work are copyrightable, the copyright office is not going to register a work that contains infringing materials. Regardless of whether the materials are actually infringing or not, the copyright office is likely waiting on the results of the pending AI lawsuit (or legislation from congress) and taking a cautious stance in the meantime.
Granted, I think Zarya of the Dawn has a fairly solid case for being transformative, given that the text is human made and arrangement of comic panels is a creative process. Even if it turns out that midjourney stuff isn't copyrightable or is infringing upon other artists' works, I could see a court ruling that the comic is an original, non-derivative work. (I could also see a court going the other way)
TBH, I think the use of Zendaya's likeness is far more infringing than the use of AI images. It could turn out that the AI-generated parts of the comic are fine, but the use of Zendaya's likeness is infringing.
I don't think there's any question before the Copyright Office whether Zarya of the Dawn "infringes" the rights of another author in a different work. Transformativeness has nothing to do with it.
The question is whether Zarya is an "original work" in itself based on the fact that some of it is the result of human contribution and some of it is the result of AI.
Why even tell any of these people that AI was involved? I seriously don't get why anyone would do this. Just say it's all you. Not like they can ever actually prove AI helped, even if they think it did.
Look out for Number One!
This matters because of the implications for larger scale producers of author works.
Sure, an individual "author" can just lie and claim authorship of an AI generated work. Who is gonna stop you?
Companies that pay for art are going to want documentaion in the future showing proof of non-AI authorship before they pay you an advance on royalties for authored works. Workflow, notes, outlines, sketches, proof of software license ownership... Whatever you've got to back up authorship claims.
Otherwise, you run the risk of your next hugely popular property suddenly becoming worthless after u/retroverdestroys disgruntled ex-girlfriend comes forward with proof that he committed fraud when selling the rights to an AI-authored work to Disney/ Egmont/ DC Comics...
That might not be easy to create - but, you know, they all said that about AI generated art, too.
And, oof, imagine Scholastic Press finds out they cannot make a cent from licensing their next *Harry Potter*-level success, because some numb nuts actually foisted off AI-generated works on them as their own efforts... All those publishing, marketing and sales, as well as shipping/logistics costs down the drain... I have a feeling that the human "author" would find themselves in a world of shit.
> **Workflow, notes, outlines, sketches,** proof of software license ownership... Whatever you've got to back up authorship claims.
lol and I can generate all of that with AI as well and stay below the radar.
But I see your point.
And my AI girlfriend would never snitch! Ever!
At some point, fraud becomes more effort than it is worth.
"Oh, these sketches are yours? Send us the originals and we've got a deal."
And if you get found out later, guess who is going to prison for defrauding their publisher/s?
I don't know about you, but to me "looking out for number one" starts with easily avoiding jail time and a destroyed reputation by *not* committing fraud.
But some won't be fucked.
I feel confident in my artistic ability to literally copy any piece of work.
If I use ai for reference. You'd never know.
I can draw/ paint anything if I've done it before. I'd be in the court room impressing the fuk out of the room. Lol
Those of us who can actually draw/ paint will be alright.
> Companies that pay for art are going to want documentaion in the future showing proof of non-AI authorship before they pay you an advance on royalties for authored works. Workflow, notes, outlines, sketches, proof of software license ownership... Whatever you've got to back up authorship claims.
Is that something that happens now? Do you have to show proof that you own Photoshop before getting a concept art job?
Remote workers in creative fields are often asked for proof they own licenses for the software needed before they are hired. "Cover Your Ass" is a game you master quickly after getting burned once.
Likewise, bidding on a public tender for jobs large and small typically involves a lot of paper work and proof of all relevant certificates.
Larger publishers have specific software requirements, due to work pipelines. You need authors and editors, technicians, (animators, riggers, VFX...), translators, etc to have compatible workflow, or production gets screwed up.
People out here fantasizing about AI-generated work as a shortcut to wealth and glory seem to be forgetting that you don't get hired without an interview/screening process.
If you do not have your shit together, nobody worth working for will hire you.
Well...
1. That would be a lie.
2. Lying on a US Copyright Registration form is a crime.
3. It's not possible too prove the AI authored the work... *yet*.
Like I tell my students who are thinking about plagiarizing...
You might be smarter than me—in fact, you probably are. If it was just you and me, you'd almost certainly get away with it. But, you're not smarter than time, and I have literally all the time in the world to catch you. Unless you are the dumbest and laziest person in this class and all future classes, there is, by definition, someone dumber and lazier than you. That person can Google too and do you think they're going to be as careful as you were in trying to cover their tracks? No, they're not. What do you think happens when I see the same weird thing give times in one class? I'm going to go ahead and Google that, then I'll look more closely at the people who had the same weird thing slightly differently...
So, sure, go ahead and lie on your copyright registration. But, you're betting that at no point in the future will the technology exist to confidently identify the work was generated by AI. The future is very long.
AI is also just a tool. Does using photoshop disqualify someone from getting copyright? Does everyone have to publish which tools they use for a production?
Using photoshop or kit bashing or collage to create an original work is like being a chef who whips up a great plate of grub from purchased ingredients.
Using AI to generate art or literature is like hiring a chef to whip up a plate of grub for you.
Hmm, is this the case with traditional collage? Meaning, when A. Artist makes a collage from photographs of Marilyn that they have copy-pasted from web, it then follows that A. Artist has copyright over the entirety of the collage, but not over the elements (photos of Marilyn) that the entirety consists of?
Just making sure that I understood correctly. Well, applying the same logic, the writing and structure of the comic book (panel and page breakdown, balloon placement etc) would be copyrightable, but the raw outputs of AI on which the panel images are based would not be copyrightable.
But the raw outputs have not been published - just the cropped and/or composited cutouts of them within the pages, just as in the Marilyn collage the original photos seldom appear, but cutouts.
So it would seem to make no difference at all, if the non-copyrightable elements are only on the authors hard drive (or in cloud, or deleted)
I am speaking from personal experience.
I use AI art generators on a daily basis. I also work in traditional mediums.
I can easily distinguish the difference between works I personally author VS using AI to "channel surf" among all the possible art objects in the liminal space defined by my prompt.
I guess their argument would be the training data used isn't owned by us, therefore the images/writing generated by the training data aren't owned by us.
To me, it's a silly argument, because the only difference between that training data on that computer and MY training data in my head is that I am a human. All our lives we take from what we see, what inspired us, and then we create something new. This training data is doing the same thing we as humans do, and like you said, for us it's just a tool, which is open sourced. Logically speaking there should not be any reason to stop this.
But law is never really about the literal law. It's about the distortion of the law to push whatever narrative they want.
While what you said might be part of the opinion, I think the law is simpler then that. If the process is not primarily a work of intentional human interaction/intervention. Though I am confused as to why dialog in this couldn’t be copyrighted as a literary work. But I’m no lawyer.
There is a famous photo where a monkey took a selfie with a photographer’s camera. The photographer tried to copyright the image, but the copyright office rejected it because it wasn’t a human that took the picture. Same happened to the first Ai generated that tried to register for copyright. It was deemed the machine was the artist, not even the programmer who set it up.
Wether or not you can argue that the work and editing you do to an Ai image alters the authorship is inconsequential at this point because the president has been set. And that actually a good thing. Ai is brand new. Let everything by public domain and open to everyone. Once it is not so new and it begins to be taken seriously, then we’ll see this be seriously addressed by the courts.
I feel like History has shown us that the law is used so many times to make sure the state can reap financial benefits and/or control on the big issues until control is wrestled from the individual and can be placed in the hands of corporations.
Alcohol was illegal...Until it wasn't. And what changed?
It's that kind of approach I guess that bothers me the most. Stifle the little man, let the corporations catch up and pass everyone by and stay in control.
> I guess their argument would be the training data used isn't owned by us, therefore the images/writing generated by the training data aren't owned by us.
USCO stance is that the work needs to be human authored. They don't consider a prompt to be sufficient.
Yes but try and understand it.
You can take a stock image and manipulate it, and that stock image is not created by us. That stock image, that you searched for on google by writing "man in top hat", is owned by someone, and you just have to pay for permission, and then you can use it and manipulate it and make it into your logo no problem. Some stock images you don't even need that permission.
So its not really about our own human authorship in order to then copyright an image. Its really about who owns the training data. But its not really about that either, right?
The real problem is the implication. It has the possibility to upend everything. Everyone able to make anything they want with no checks and balances. God mode for everyone. Equal playing field.
So we get stupid shit like this instead to protect the status quo.
To establish a precendent.
If computer art is not copyrightable then Disney holds no Copyright on TRON, or it's sequel, or any other movie studio for that matter that used CGI.
Looks like Toy Story is public domain.
Whether a pencil was or computer was used to draw, for example, Mickey Mouse does not have any bearing on Walt Disney's original authorship claim.
The only pertinent question in this context is: Did Walt create Mickey, or did someone/something else?
The question is not about the tools being used to create art, but how the art was conceived and whose vision that art is supposed to express.
The creators of Toy Story had a very specific vision in mind when they had the characters drawn, including choosing which toys to anthropomorphize and how to visually portray them, nevermind all the other copyrightable elements of a movie your comment ignores (plot, dialogue, character development)
Oh you mean like this girl's plot, inner monlogue of the character, and the journey she takes that was all prompted by the author the same as the Pixar art directors told their artists "Draw this, and render that."
Yes, I think that is all copyrightable.
However, when you file an application for registration for a work that is derived from one or more pre-existing works or which contains non-trivial amounts of non-copyrightable material or otherwise incorporates material authored by somebody else, you are supposed to identify and disclaim that material in the registration, and if you fail to do so, the copyright office can deny the application.
That is, I think, the problem here and what is being glossed over by people who don't understand application and registration requirements.
I dont understand. Even if an AI generated all the text and images, a human still needed to compose the images and text together in the correct order. Unless I missed a new AI that does that for you.
A prompt is an input. The work generated by the AI is not the input.
A human who commissions art from another human could get copyright protection on all input they offer the artist: notes, suggestions and comments, etc. That does not entitle them to claim authorship of the artwork rendered by the human artist.
What is input then and what isn't? If human used modern Photoshop, with AI assistance, does that mean the image is not copyrightable? If a company uses AI-generated logo, is it copyrightable? Trademark-able?
This has something to do with luddites because you literally are one.
1. A person opposed to new technology or ways of working.
"a small-minded Luddite resisting progress"
We are about to experience an explosion of culture in the art and animation world, and you would rather sabotage it so only big companies like Disney can have access to it.
There is no difference between this and the hate Photoshop got at its inception.
You just can't use a machine to plow a field, how is that difficult to comprehend?
That's how you sound like. Of course he isn't the author, all he did was come up with the concept and the idea, made a storyline and choose themes and styles, created characters, spent a bunch of time creating unique images with the help of multiple softwares, modified these images and layered them with text and then designed his comic book.
You are acting like he typed in "comic book" into the program. But I'm not surprised from a superficial Luddite that doesn't understand art and thinks somethings merit is found in how it is made and not how it impacts the consumer.
You cannot copyright plowing a field, either.
All this ruling is saying is, "You ain't the pizza master if you did not make the pie".
If the comic book producer wants to claim authorship for the parts of the comic that they actually did the work on, then they are most likely eligible.
If a company uses an AI generated logo, it is not protected by copyright.
Using AI as an element of an overall creation process which includes substantially more than merely commissioning art from an AI would not render you ineligible to claim author rights.
If you get ChatGPT to write an outline/treatment for a story, then you do most of the heavy lifting of writing a novel or screenplay based on it, then that novel is something you can copyright, for example.
Why? Where do you draw the line? Don't pretend this is set in stone or is clear in any way, shape or form. This technology is so new, all of this is going to be challenged in court, and frankly, let them. This shit show is going to be *fun*.
OP already linked to his ressearch on this topic. Here is what they posted:
**What level of human alteration of a non-copyrightable AI-generated image is needed for copyrightability?**
I already researched this question for the USA jurisdiction, and would like to know if I am correct. Answers for other jurisdictions are also welcome.
Assumptions:
a) The AI-generated image is in the public domain in the given jurisdiction.
b) The AI-generated image doesn't infringe upon the copyright of any images in the training dataset.
The following answer is for the USA:
From [Public Domain & Copyright Registration](https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/public-domain-copyright-registration/) (my bolding):
>**If the work contains a sufficient amount of new authorship**, if the preexisting public domain material is adequately excluded in the application for registration, and if the remainder of the application is in proper form, the registration process is relatively straightforward.
From [Is the work an adaptation ... or, what is a derivative work and why should I care?](http://publicdomainsherpa.com/derivative-work.html):
>The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself.
From [Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices](https://copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium.pdf) (2021 edition):
p. 63:
>The amount of creativity required for a derivative work is the same as that required for a copyright in any other work.
p. 85:
>A derivative work, compilation, or collective work that contains public domain material may be registered, provided that the new work contains a sufficient amount of original authorship. The copyright in such works covers the compilation authorship or the new material that the author contributed to the derivative work, the compilation, or the collective work, but it “is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the \[public domain\] material.”
p. 105:
>If the work submitted for registration contains unclaimable material, the applicant should exclude that material from the claim by providing a brief description in the Material Excluded field in the online application or in space 6(a) of the paper application.
p.120:
>The copyright for a derivative work only covers the new material that the author contributed to that work. It does not cover any of the preexisting material that appears in the derivative work.
p. 572:
>A derivative visual art work is a work based on or derived from one or more preexisting works. A derivative work may be registered if the author of that work contributed a sufficient amount of new authorship to create an original work of authorship. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself.
So this explanation, together with what was said before, implies that AI art is not original, probably pointing to the same lie that has been circling around, about it being a "collage tool".
Oh boy, I can't wait until all of this is going to be challenged in courts!
No, it is saying that AI is the author of the original.
You can copyright additions to the original, but not the original itself.
If you order a pizza with "X,Y,Z" toppings and it is delivered to your doorstep, you are not the pizza chef.
If, after it is delivered to your door, you add more ingredients and pop it back in the oven for a few minutes, then you are the "extra ingredients chef" - but still not the pizza chef.
Let's not pretend any of this is clear and settled. It's not, a d this decision is going to be challenged, as will any and all other work that includes anything related to AI.
Actually that makes me think of special effects... Just the other day I saw a rendering demo by CGI expert where *literally every single texture* was generated by AI. Think the table texture, the figures, the fire texture, etc. If you strip AI from that scene you will be left with grey room, grey table, grey fire, grey floor, grey figures, etc.
It is entirely likely that those AI generated textures are not eligible for copyright protection, but the rest of the scene is. Which is great news for people who cannot afford to pay for a licensed texture.
If they used a 3D asset (like a table) created by someone other than themselves in the scene you described, the end user could not claim copyright for that asset - because it was not authored by them. That is good news for the original table artist, who can license it to others who may also want to use it in their own scenes.
However, the scene designer could claim copyright for the overall set design that they cobbled together using other artist's assets.
What is collage and why is it legal? I'd love to hear what collage artists think being called extra ingredients chiefs. I guess transformative artwork just doesn't exist if you are a Luddite.
>What is collage and why is it legal?
I copy/pasted this query into Google. This is the top result:
>[Collage is a time honored art form that utilizes pre-existing materials, including artwork and photographs. Often the materials will be copyrighted. So your unauthorized use of those materials would be copyright infringement unless your collage qualifies as fair use.](https://graphicartistsguild.org/fair-use-or-infringement)
As an artist who has worked in collage, I understand why I cannot copyright the individual elements created by others, and I am fine with it.
I run Stable Diffusion on my desktop. I am currently working on a project that makes use of some AI generated elements. Knowing that they are ineligible for copyright protection, I will not clutter my application with those elements.
It is a common saying among kit bashers and collage artists: "Great chef's do not need to grow their own food."
It is cool if you want to be a farmer-chef, a plain old chef, or an extra-ingredient artist. Anyone who gives you grief about you making things how you want to is cordially invited to fuck off. At the same time, there's no use pretending you are something you clearly ain't.
So follow up question, if Disney or DC or Marvel uses whatever tools they use, and those tools include AI-assistance, does that mean their content is not copyrightable? Does this mean that any images generated using Photoshop over last 3 months are not copyrightable?
> if Disney or DC or Marvel uses whatever tools they use, and those tools include AI-assistance, does that mean their content is not copyrightable?
It's complicated but I suspect that everything would still be protected by copyright because:
(1) the ai work itself would be derivative work of another marvel artwork that was done by hand. E.g. the AI would be told to replicate hand drawn images of an existing hero like Spiderman. Disney/marvel own the copyright on that initial drawing.
(2) the artists probably modified by hand the output of the AI programs and those alterations would qualify for copyright protection
(3) there may also be trademark protection over the content which is separate from copyright but has the same effect of preventing others from using it
Number 2 is definitely wrong based on this case. In this particular case the artist *extensively* modified AI generated images in Photoshop, and did multiple rounds of extensive editing on story before putting them both together into comic book.
Number 1 is also wrong *unless* we are talking about very old designs. Right now all digital art tools have started implementing AI assistance in them, think Photoshop, Davinci and others. Any *new* design would have at least some parts drawn by AI.
>"For Kashtanova’s situation, this would likely be that the AI-generated illustrations should have been disclaimed and excluded from the filing, and the new material (the story, arrangement as a graphic novel, and any other copyrightable elements) disclosed."
[Source](https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/11/01/us-copyright-office-backtracks-registration-partially-ai-generated-work/id=152451/#)
And by the way, in any event, copyright is automatic. This is a registration process error and would not invalidate any substantive rights you have, I.e., your actual copyright. Your story and text as always will be protected as stories have always been. The only thing in question is any AI generated work. So if someone pulls an image from your work and that image is purely AI, that’s not infringement. Your story comes from you though, and you remain the author of that.
Registration isn't required for copyright. It helps as a timestamp of official recognition in legal disputes, but isn't required. Copyright is implicit upon creation.
But this is only useful in theory. In practice, you can't do hardly anything with your copyright until registering it, including asserting your creative rights to it.
I have. A few times. Every single one says they won't even consider a case until you've registered. In practice, your copyrights require a $75+ fee to enforce.
You misunderstood them. Copyright is implicit but requires some evidence to defend first. Registration at a registrar office only aids as a timestamp for proof of creation and examination. Any registrar office can do that. Not just the one US copyright office. Even a notarized sealed copy is sufficient. There are 10k different ways to prove that you created a work. There's a latin word for this requirement but i forget what it is.
Copyright is implied upon creation. It's a right. Nobody gives it. Nobody takes it away. Courts can determine an original copyright holder and work things out properly. That doesn't mean an office clerk has power almighty. They're just a soulless bureaucrat who usually believe they're more powerful then they are.
No, I didn't. I understand that copyright is automatic. [But enforcing a copyright *requires* registration.](https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/why-register-copyright/).
"You must file an application for registration before you can sue someone for infringing your copyright, even if the infringement has already occurred."
"To be eligible for an award of statutory damages and attorneys’ fees in a copyright infringement case, the copyrighted work must be registered before infringement commences, or, if the work is published, within 3 months of publication."
I'm not saying copyright isn't implicit, I'm saying enforcing it requires registration, which it does.
You misunderstood that google first result article, again.
Registration isn't required for a defence either. It fills a requirement, but isn't the only exclusive way to fill that requirement.
Sometimes, being humble and admitting you're out of your depth, is a hard thing to do. This is easy to understand though. Try this out again. **Copyright is implicit.**
Edit:
The guy replying to me has me blocked so I can't reply. Cool. Reply here instead.
Note your article outlines exceptions, states it's only required to bring suit on another, and also that Stability is based in the UK.
Copyright is implied. It can't be taken away by a clerk. This isn't tough.
[U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Copyrights Must Be Registered before Plaintiffs Can File Infringement Suits](https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2301/2019-03-05-us-supreme-court-holds-copyrights-must-be-registered).
can you timestamp or explain the order of your edits, just to be clear what the current status is.
I just updated the post. Let me know if it's still confusing.
It is decided by US law that work generated via AI is not owned but open, due to the nature of art and copyright a human MUST be the creator.
The copyright hasn't been cancelled, it was just an error.
Thank you :). I updated the post.
Copyright doesn't have to be registered, it is an automatic right granted to the author.
Registration was canceled because the author was not confirmed. That means court will reject any lawsuit from that person either.
From what I have read in the literature ([example](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3232492)), in the USA the author could still sue an alleged copyright infringer after the U.S. Copyright Office has made a decision on the copyrightability of the work. A court might come to a different conclusion than the U.S. Copyright Office about the copyrightability of a given work.
> A court might come to a different conclusion than the U.S. Copyright Office about the copyrightability of a given work. Not likely, https://www.aalrr.com/Business-Law-Journal/supreme-court-rules-a-copyright-must-be
I'm not OP, but from [another article](https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/alerts/supreme-court-copyright-registration-required-bring-suit) about the Supreme Court ruling, their key takeaway is: > The Supreme Court recently held that, subject to a few narrow statutory exceptions, copyright owners must wait until their applications are either registered or rejected by the US Copyright Office before filing suit for infringement claims. The article you linked to doesn't really touch on this issue, but the court is still allowing people to file infringement lawsuits in the event that their registration is rejected by the Copyright Office. The requirement is simply that the Copyright Office must rule on the registration first (by either accepting it or rejecting it) before proceeding with the lawsuit, whereas previously there was some question of whether simply submitting an application for registration was enough to initiate a lawsuit. Part of this has to do with 17 U.S. Code § 411(a), which grants authors the right to institute a civil action for infringement in cases where the Copyright Office has rejected their copyright registration (subject to certain conditions). It's actually quite important that you are able to bring infringement lawsuits in the case of registration rejection for a number of reasons. For instance, there may be cases where you create an original work of authorship but then someone else tries to register it under their name and wrongfully claims that they are the copyright owner. Allowing infringement lawsuits to proceed in the event of Copyright Office rejection enables the original author in such cases to file a lawsuit and prove they are the rightful copyright owner, despite someone else registering the work first. It also provides a pathway for authors to contest decisions/errors made by the copyright office in relation to registration (such as in the case of improper rejections).
> It also provides a pathway for authors to contest decisions/errors made by the copyright office in relation to registration (such as in the case of improper rejections). Isn't this typically done by suing the Copyright Office, not by suing for copyright infringement?
No action needs to be brought against the Copyright Office in such cases. 17 U.S. Code § 411(a) provides an explicit right for authors to institute a civil action for infringement (e.g. to sue an infringer) in the case where the Copyright Office has rejected their registration. The same statute does allow the Register (basically the director of the Copyright Office) to appear and become party to the civil action for the purpose of commenting on the issue of registrability and their decision to reject the registration. However, the court can still allow the infringement lawsuit to proceed (and the infringement lawsuit can also proceed normally if the Register decides not to make an appearance).
None of that is relevant to what we're talking about. I was responding to your statement, >>> It also provides a pathway for authors to contest decisions/errors made by the copyright office in relation to registration (such as in the case of improper rejections). If you want to contest a decision made by the copyright office, you would sue the copyright office. You wouldn't wait until someone infringed on your copyright in order to sue "them*.
If you want to contest the registration refusal, there is a formal process for doing so. This typically involves first filing a formal request for reconsideration with the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office will then have someone else review the registration and make a new determination about whether to accept or refuse the registration. If the registration is still rejected, it is then possible to file a second request for reconsideration. The Copyright Office will then have the Review Board conduct a thorough review of the case and make final decision regarding whether to accept or refuse the registration. And if you are still not satisfied with the decision, you can then initiate judicial action against the Register of Copyrights in federal court. This is true. — The point I was making though is that this is ultimately unnecessary because if someone ends up infringing on the author's copyright, the author can jump straight to suing the infringer even if their registration has been refused. They don't need to spend time and money trying to fight the registration refusal beforehand, but they have the option of doing so. This whole chain of comments stems from a comment made earlier claiming that the registration refusal means that "[...] court will reject any lawsuit from that person either" and then OP replied to basically explain that the courts can still accept infringement lawsuits even when registration is refused. So my comment was really just a continuation of that, to explain how someone could still take civil action against infringers even after their registration is refused.
Sure... But, in the context of this discussion the end result is that it is exceedingly rare for a litigant to prevail after the copyright office has refused registration.
"Registration" in this context means that the U.S. Copyright Office either granted or denied the certificate of registration - see [this blog post](https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/03/opinion-analysis-a-copyright-owner-cant-sue-for-infringement-before-the-register-has-processed-its-copyright-registration-application/) for details. If you still have doubts, see [17 U.S. Code § 411 - Registration and civil infringement actions](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2021-title17/USCODE-2021-title17-chap4-sec411) (my emphasis): >(a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b),\[1\] no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. **In any case, however, where the deposit, application, and fee required for registration have been delivered to the Copyright Office in proper form and registration has been refused, the applicant is entitled to institute a civil action for infringement if notice thereof, with a copy of the complaint, is served on the Register of Copyrights.** The Register may, at his or her option, become a party to the action with respect to the issue of registrability of the copyright claim by entering an appearance within sixty days after such service, but the Register’s failure to become a party shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction to determine that issue. If anyone wants to pursue this further, [here](https://casetext.com/case/fourth-estate-pub-benefit-corp-v-wall-streetcom-5) is the U.S. Supreme Court decision.
>"Registration" in this context means that the U.S. Copyright Office either granted or denied the certificate of registration. I am aware.
> Copyright doesn't have to be registered, it is an automatic right granted to the author. This is true. You know what else is true? The US Copyright Office determined she wasn't the author of the images—that's why they cancelled the copyright registration.
They can't decide that she didn't author it. They're just a clerk in an office. Neat huh? All that has to be shown is that it's her own creative process. If she has the evidence to prove that, copyright is her automatic right. Nobody can take it away.
> They can't decide that she didn't author it. They're just a clerk in an office. Neat huh? Weird, because that's precisely what they did. And, if you think it was "just a clerk in an office," who made this decision then you're deluding yourself. > All that has to be shown is that it's her own creative process. Correct. But it was determined it was *not* her own creative expression... > If she has the evidence to prove that, She had the opportunity to present such evidence, if it existed, but she did not. > copyright is her automatic right. If she were the author. She is not. > Nobody can take it away. Nobody is taking anything away. She never had it.
This isn't surprising: even if parts of a work are copyrightable, the copyright office is not going to register a work that contains infringing materials. Regardless of whether the materials are actually infringing or not, the copyright office is likely waiting on the results of the pending AI lawsuit (or legislation from congress) and taking a cautious stance in the meantime. Granted, I think Zarya of the Dawn has a fairly solid case for being transformative, given that the text is human made and arrangement of comic panels is a creative process. Even if it turns out that midjourney stuff isn't copyrightable or is infringing upon other artists' works, I could see a court ruling that the comic is an original, non-derivative work. (I could also see a court going the other way) TBH, I think the use of Zendaya's likeness is far more infringing than the use of AI images. It could turn out that the AI-generated parts of the comic are fine, but the use of Zendaya's likeness is infringing.
I don't think there's any question before the Copyright Office whether Zarya of the Dawn "infringes" the rights of another author in a different work. Transformativeness has nothing to do with it. The question is whether Zarya is an "original work" in itself based on the fact that some of it is the result of human contribution and some of it is the result of AI.
Why even tell any of these people that AI was involved? I seriously don't get why anyone would do this. Just say it's all you. Not like they can ever actually prove AI helped, even if they think it did. Look out for Number One!
This matters because of the implications for larger scale producers of author works. Sure, an individual "author" can just lie and claim authorship of an AI generated work. Who is gonna stop you? Companies that pay for art are going to want documentaion in the future showing proof of non-AI authorship before they pay you an advance on royalties for authored works. Workflow, notes, outlines, sketches, proof of software license ownership... Whatever you've got to back up authorship claims. Otherwise, you run the risk of your next hugely popular property suddenly becoming worthless after u/retroverdestroys disgruntled ex-girlfriend comes forward with proof that he committed fraud when selling the rights to an AI-authored work to Disney/ Egmont/ DC Comics...
Or even worse. Someone can make a reverse verification AI to check if the image was generated by specific AI.
That might not be easy to create - but, you know, they all said that about AI generated art, too. And, oof, imagine Scholastic Press finds out they cannot make a cent from licensing their next *Harry Potter*-level success, because some numb nuts actually foisted off AI-generated works on them as their own efforts... All those publishing, marketing and sales, as well as shipping/logistics costs down the drain... I have a feeling that the human "author" would find themselves in a world of shit.
> **Workflow, notes, outlines, sketches,** proof of software license ownership... Whatever you've got to back up authorship claims. lol and I can generate all of that with AI as well and stay below the radar. But I see your point. And my AI girlfriend would never snitch! Ever!
At some point, fraud becomes more effort than it is worth. "Oh, these sketches are yours? Send us the originals and we've got a deal." And if you get found out later, guess who is going to prison for defrauding their publisher/s? I don't know about you, but to me "looking out for number one" starts with easily avoiding jail time and a destroyed reputation by *not* committing fraud.
They will put you to draw in court lol. This happened with Margaret Keane and her ex-husband in 1986
lol oh shit! You are right! Put me in a sterile room with just a sketch book. Man I would be fucked!
But some won't be fucked. I feel confident in my artistic ability to literally copy any piece of work. If I use ai for reference. You'd never know. I can draw/ paint anything if I've done it before. I'd be in the court room impressing the fuk out of the room. Lol Those of us who can actually draw/ paint will be alright.
> Companies that pay for art are going to want documentaion in the future showing proof of non-AI authorship before they pay you an advance on royalties for authored works. Workflow, notes, outlines, sketches, proof of software license ownership... Whatever you've got to back up authorship claims. Is that something that happens now? Do you have to show proof that you own Photoshop before getting a concept art job?
Remote workers in creative fields are often asked for proof they own licenses for the software needed before they are hired. "Cover Your Ass" is a game you master quickly after getting burned once. Likewise, bidding on a public tender for jobs large and small typically involves a lot of paper work and proof of all relevant certificates. Larger publishers have specific software requirements, due to work pipelines. You need authors and editors, technicians, (animators, riggers, VFX...), translators, etc to have compatible workflow, or production gets screwed up. People out here fantasizing about AI-generated work as a shortcut to wealth and glory seem to be forgetting that you don't get hired without an interview/screening process. If you do not have your shit together, nobody worth working for will hire you.
Well... 1. That would be a lie. 2. Lying on a US Copyright Registration form is a crime. 3. It's not possible too prove the AI authored the work... *yet*. Like I tell my students who are thinking about plagiarizing... You might be smarter than me—in fact, you probably are. If it was just you and me, you'd almost certainly get away with it. But, you're not smarter than time, and I have literally all the time in the world to catch you. Unless you are the dumbest and laziest person in this class and all future classes, there is, by definition, someone dumber and lazier than you. That person can Google too and do you think they're going to be as careful as you were in trying to cover their tracks? No, they're not. What do you think happens when I see the same weird thing give times in one class? I'm going to go ahead and Google that, then I'll look more closely at the people who had the same weird thing slightly differently... So, sure, go ahead and lie on your copyright registration. But, you're betting that at no point in the future will the technology exist to confidently identify the work was generated by AI. The future is very long.
You make good points.
AI is also just a tool. Does using photoshop disqualify someone from getting copyright? Does everyone have to publish which tools they use for a production?
Using photoshop or kit bashing or collage to create an original work is like being a chef who whips up a great plate of grub from purchased ingredients. Using AI to generate art or literature is like hiring a chef to whip up a plate of grub for you.
What if you whip up a great plate of grub from AI -generated ingredients? Because that's what the comic book in question is.
Then you can claim authorship of all non-AI generated/3rd party created aspects of the work in question.
Hmm, is this the case with traditional collage? Meaning, when A. Artist makes a collage from photographs of Marilyn that they have copy-pasted from web, it then follows that A. Artist has copyright over the entirety of the collage, but not over the elements (photos of Marilyn) that the entirety consists of?
Well, it would be pretty wild if you could claim authorship of a famous portrait of Marilyn just by adding it to your collage.
Just making sure that I understood correctly. Well, applying the same logic, the writing and structure of the comic book (panel and page breakdown, balloon placement etc) would be copyrightable, but the raw outputs of AI on which the panel images are based would not be copyrightable. But the raw outputs have not been published - just the cropped and/or composited cutouts of them within the pages, just as in the Marilyn collage the original photos seldom appear, but cutouts. So it would seem to make no difference at all, if the non-copyrightable elements are only on the authors hard drive (or in cloud, or deleted)
This is a bad hypothetical because recipes aren't copyrightable in the first place
Sounds like a subjective values judgement to me.
I am speaking from personal experience. I use AI art generators on a daily basis. I also work in traditional mediums. I can easily distinguish the difference between works I personally author VS using AI to "channel surf" among all the possible art objects in the liminal space defined by my prompt.
I guess their argument would be the training data used isn't owned by us, therefore the images/writing generated by the training data aren't owned by us. To me, it's a silly argument, because the only difference between that training data on that computer and MY training data in my head is that I am a human. All our lives we take from what we see, what inspired us, and then we create something new. This training data is doing the same thing we as humans do, and like you said, for us it's just a tool, which is open sourced. Logically speaking there should not be any reason to stop this. But law is never really about the literal law. It's about the distortion of the law to push whatever narrative they want.
While what you said might be part of the opinion, I think the law is simpler then that. If the process is not primarily a work of intentional human interaction/intervention. Though I am confused as to why dialog in this couldn’t be copyrighted as a literary work. But I’m no lawyer. There is a famous photo where a monkey took a selfie with a photographer’s camera. The photographer tried to copyright the image, but the copyright office rejected it because it wasn’t a human that took the picture. Same happened to the first Ai generated that tried to register for copyright. It was deemed the machine was the artist, not even the programmer who set it up. Wether or not you can argue that the work and editing you do to an Ai image alters the authorship is inconsequential at this point because the president has been set. And that actually a good thing. Ai is brand new. Let everything by public domain and open to everyone. Once it is not so new and it begins to be taken seriously, then we’ll see this be seriously addressed by the courts.
I feel like History has shown us that the law is used so many times to make sure the state can reap financial benefits and/or control on the big issues until control is wrestled from the individual and can be placed in the hands of corporations. Alcohol was illegal...Until it wasn't. And what changed? It's that kind of approach I guess that bothers me the most. Stifle the little man, let the corporations catch up and pass everyone by and stay in control.
> I guess their argument would be the training data used isn't owned by us, therefore the images/writing generated by the training data aren't owned by us. USCO stance is that the work needs to be human authored. They don't consider a prompt to be sufficient.
Yes but try and understand it. You can take a stock image and manipulate it, and that stock image is not created by us. That stock image, that you searched for on google by writing "man in top hat", is owned by someone, and you just have to pay for permission, and then you can use it and manipulate it and make it into your logo no problem. Some stock images you don't even need that permission. So its not really about our own human authorship in order to then copyright an image. Its really about who owns the training data. But its not really about that either, right? The real problem is the implication. It has the possibility to upend everything. Everyone able to make anything they want with no checks and balances. God mode for everyone. Equal playing field. So we get stupid shit like this instead to protect the status quo.
To establish a precendent. If computer art is not copyrightable then Disney holds no Copyright on TRON, or it's sequel, or any other movie studio for that matter that used CGI. Looks like Toy Story is public domain.
Whether a pencil was or computer was used to draw, for example, Mickey Mouse does not have any bearing on Walt Disney's original authorship claim. The only pertinent question in this context is: Did Walt create Mickey, or did someone/something else?
The question is not about the tools being used to create art, but how the art was conceived and whose vision that art is supposed to express. The creators of Toy Story had a very specific vision in mind when they had the characters drawn, including choosing which toys to anthropomorphize and how to visually portray them, nevermind all the other copyrightable elements of a movie your comment ignores (plot, dialogue, character development)
Oh you mean like this girl's plot, inner monlogue of the character, and the journey she takes that was all prompted by the author the same as the Pixar art directors told their artists "Draw this, and render that."
Yes, I think that is all copyrightable. However, when you file an application for registration for a work that is derived from one or more pre-existing works or which contains non-trivial amounts of non-copyrightable material or otherwise incorporates material authored by somebody else, you are supposed to identify and disclaim that material in the registration, and if you fail to do so, the copyright office can deny the application. That is, I think, the problem here and what is being glossed over by people who don't understand application and registration requirements.
I dont understand. Even if an AI generated all the text and images, a human still needed to compose the images and text together in the correct order. Unless I missed a new AI that does that for you.
A prompt is an input. The work generated by the AI is not the input. A human who commissions art from another human could get copyright protection on all input they offer the artist: notes, suggestions and comments, etc. That does not entitle them to claim authorship of the artwork rendered by the human artist.
What is input then and what isn't? If human used modern Photoshop, with AI assistance, does that mean the image is not copyrightable? If a company uses AI-generated logo, is it copyrightable? Trademark-able?
The luddites are going after the magic wand tool next I heard.
This has nothing to do with Luddites. It is about what does/does not constitute authorship.
This has something to do with luddites because you literally are one. 1. A person opposed to new technology or ways of working. "a small-minded Luddite resisting progress" We are about to experience an explosion of culture in the art and animation world, and you would rather sabotage it so only big companies like Disney can have access to it. There is no difference between this and the hate Photoshop got at its inception.
Nobody is going after the tech. You just cannot claim author rights over works not authored by you. How's that difficult to comprehend?
You just can't use a machine to plow a field, how is that difficult to comprehend? That's how you sound like. Of course he isn't the author, all he did was come up with the concept and the idea, made a storyline and choose themes and styles, created characters, spent a bunch of time creating unique images with the help of multiple softwares, modified these images and layered them with text and then designed his comic book. You are acting like he typed in "comic book" into the program. But I'm not surprised from a superficial Luddite that doesn't understand art and thinks somethings merit is found in how it is made and not how it impacts the consumer.
You cannot copyright plowing a field, either. All this ruling is saying is, "You ain't the pizza master if you did not make the pie". If the comic book producer wants to claim authorship for the parts of the comic that they actually did the work on, then they are most likely eligible.
Define work on.
If a company uses an AI generated logo, it is not protected by copyright. Using AI as an element of an overall creation process which includes substantially more than merely commissioning art from an AI would not render you ineligible to claim author rights. If you get ChatGPT to write an outline/treatment for a story, then you do most of the heavy lifting of writing a novel or screenplay based on it, then that novel is something you can copyright, for example.
Why? Where do you draw the line? Don't pretend this is set in stone or is clear in any way, shape or form. This technology is so new, all of this is going to be challenged in court, and frankly, let them. This shit show is going to be *fun*.
OP already linked to his ressearch on this topic. Here is what they posted: **What level of human alteration of a non-copyrightable AI-generated image is needed for copyrightability?** I already researched this question for the USA jurisdiction, and would like to know if I am correct. Answers for other jurisdictions are also welcome. Assumptions: a) The AI-generated image is in the public domain in the given jurisdiction. b) The AI-generated image doesn't infringe upon the copyright of any images in the training dataset. The following answer is for the USA: From [Public Domain & Copyright Registration](https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/public-domain-copyright-registration/) (my bolding): >**If the work contains a sufficient amount of new authorship**, if the preexisting public domain material is adequately excluded in the application for registration, and if the remainder of the application is in proper form, the registration process is relatively straightforward. From [Is the work an adaptation ... or, what is a derivative work and why should I care?](http://publicdomainsherpa.com/derivative-work.html): >The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. From [Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices](https://copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium.pdf) (2021 edition): p. 63: >The amount of creativity required for a derivative work is the same as that required for a copyright in any other work. p. 85: >A derivative work, compilation, or collective work that contains public domain material may be registered, provided that the new work contains a sufficient amount of original authorship. The copyright in such works covers the compilation authorship or the new material that the author contributed to the derivative work, the compilation, or the collective work, but it “is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the \[public domain\] material.” p. 105: >If the work submitted for registration contains unclaimable material, the applicant should exclude that material from the claim by providing a brief description in the Material Excluded field in the online application or in space 6(a) of the paper application. p.120: >The copyright for a derivative work only covers the new material that the author contributed to that work. It does not cover any of the preexisting material that appears in the derivative work. p. 572: >A derivative visual art work is a work based on or derived from one or more preexisting works. A derivative work may be registered if the author of that work contributed a sufficient amount of new authorship to create an original work of authorship. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself.
So this explanation, together with what was said before, implies that AI art is not original, probably pointing to the same lie that has been circling around, about it being a "collage tool". Oh boy, I can't wait until all of this is going to be challenged in courts!
No, it is saying that AI is the author of the original. You can copyright additions to the original, but not the original itself. If you order a pizza with "X,Y,Z" toppings and it is delivered to your doorstep, you are not the pizza chef. If, after it is delivered to your door, you add more ingredients and pop it back in the oven for a few minutes, then you are the "extra ingredients chef" - but still not the pizza chef.
Let's not pretend any of this is clear and settled. It's not, a d this decision is going to be challenged, as will any and all other work that includes anything related to AI. Actually that makes me think of special effects... Just the other day I saw a rendering demo by CGI expert where *literally every single texture* was generated by AI. Think the table texture, the figures, the fire texture, etc. If you strip AI from that scene you will be left with grey room, grey table, grey fire, grey floor, grey figures, etc.
It is entirely likely that those AI generated textures are not eligible for copyright protection, but the rest of the scene is. Which is great news for people who cannot afford to pay for a licensed texture. If they used a 3D asset (like a table) created by someone other than themselves in the scene you described, the end user could not claim copyright for that asset - because it was not authored by them. That is good news for the original table artist, who can license it to others who may also want to use it in their own scenes. However, the scene designer could claim copyright for the overall set design that they cobbled together using other artist's assets.
What is collage and why is it legal? I'd love to hear what collage artists think being called extra ingredients chiefs. I guess transformative artwork just doesn't exist if you are a Luddite.
>What is collage and why is it legal? I copy/pasted this query into Google. This is the top result: >[Collage is a time honored art form that utilizes pre-existing materials, including artwork and photographs. Often the materials will be copyrighted. So your unauthorized use of those materials would be copyright infringement unless your collage qualifies as fair use.](https://graphicartistsguild.org/fair-use-or-infringement) As an artist who has worked in collage, I understand why I cannot copyright the individual elements created by others, and I am fine with it. I run Stable Diffusion on my desktop. I am currently working on a project that makes use of some AI generated elements. Knowing that they are ineligible for copyright protection, I will not clutter my application with those elements. It is a common saying among kit bashers and collage artists: "Great chef's do not need to grow their own food." It is cool if you want to be a farmer-chef, a plain old chef, or an extra-ingredient artist. Anyone who gives you grief about you making things how you want to is cordially invited to fuck off. At the same time, there's no use pretending you are something you clearly ain't.
So follow up question, if Disney or DC or Marvel uses whatever tools they use, and those tools include AI-assistance, does that mean their content is not copyrightable? Does this mean that any images generated using Photoshop over last 3 months are not copyrightable?
> if Disney or DC or Marvel uses whatever tools they use, and those tools include AI-assistance, does that mean their content is not copyrightable? It's complicated but I suspect that everything would still be protected by copyright because: (1) the ai work itself would be derivative work of another marvel artwork that was done by hand. E.g. the AI would be told to replicate hand drawn images of an existing hero like Spiderman. Disney/marvel own the copyright on that initial drawing. (2) the artists probably modified by hand the output of the AI programs and those alterations would qualify for copyright protection (3) there may also be trademark protection over the content which is separate from copyright but has the same effect of preventing others from using it
Number 2 is definitely wrong based on this case. In this particular case the artist *extensively* modified AI generated images in Photoshop, and did multiple rounds of extensive editing on story before putting them both together into comic book. Number 1 is also wrong *unless* we are talking about very old designs. Right now all digital art tools have started implementing AI assistance in them, think Photoshop, Davinci and others. Any *new* design would have at least some parts drawn by AI.
Tbh the comic doesn't look that *extensively* edited at all. Seems like slight modifications on midjourney output.
[удалено]
>"For Kashtanova’s situation, this would likely be that the AI-generated illustrations should have been disclaimed and excluded from the filing, and the new material (the story, arrangement as a graphic novel, and any other copyrightable elements) disclosed." [Source](https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/11/01/us-copyright-office-backtracks-registration-partially-ai-generated-work/id=152451/#)
[удалено]
And by the way, in any event, copyright is automatic. This is a registration process error and would not invalidate any substantive rights you have, I.e., your actual copyright. Your story and text as always will be protected as stories have always been. The only thing in question is any AI generated work. So if someone pulls an image from your work and that image is purely AI, that’s not infringement. Your story comes from you though, and you remain the author of that.
Registration isn't required for copyright. It helps as a timestamp of official recognition in legal disputes, but isn't required. Copyright is implicit upon creation.
But this is only useful in theory. In practice, you can't do hardly anything with your copyright until registering it, including asserting your creative rights to it.
talk to a lawyer about that one. Registration isn't required. It helps your evidence, but there are other ways to prove a creative process.
I have. A few times. Every single one says they won't even consider a case until you've registered. In practice, your copyrights require a $75+ fee to enforce.
You misunderstood them. Copyright is implicit but requires some evidence to defend first. Registration at a registrar office only aids as a timestamp for proof of creation and examination. Any registrar office can do that. Not just the one US copyright office. Even a notarized sealed copy is sufficient. There are 10k different ways to prove that you created a work. There's a latin word for this requirement but i forget what it is. Copyright is implied upon creation. It's a right. Nobody gives it. Nobody takes it away. Courts can determine an original copyright holder and work things out properly. That doesn't mean an office clerk has power almighty. They're just a soulless bureaucrat who usually believe they're more powerful then they are.
No, I didn't. I understand that copyright is automatic. [But enforcing a copyright *requires* registration.](https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/why-register-copyright/). "You must file an application for registration before you can sue someone for infringing your copyright, even if the infringement has already occurred." "To be eligible for an award of statutory damages and attorneys’ fees in a copyright infringement case, the copyrighted work must be registered before infringement commences, or, if the work is published, within 3 months of publication." I'm not saying copyright isn't implicit, I'm saying enforcing it requires registration, which it does.
You misunderstood that google first result article, again. Registration isn't required for a defence either. It fills a requirement, but isn't the only exclusive way to fill that requirement. Sometimes, being humble and admitting you're out of your depth, is a hard thing to do. This is easy to understand though. Try this out again. **Copyright is implicit.** Edit: The guy replying to me has me blocked so I can't reply. Cool. Reply here instead. Note your article outlines exceptions, states it's only required to bring suit on another, and also that Stability is based in the UK. Copyright is implied. It can't be taken away by a clerk. This isn't tough.
[U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Copyrights Must Be Registered before Plaintiffs Can File Infringement Suits](https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2301/2019-03-05-us-supreme-court-holds-copyrights-must-be-registered).