• FormallyKnown@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 months ago

    “All Allen could copyright was what he did to the image himself” - so if he trained the model himself, would that make the work copyrightable? Does that mean midjourney has the copyright of all the images created with it?

    • David Gerard@awful.systemsOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The image gatcha does not create a new copyright. There might be a copyright in the text of a complex prompt (do you feel lucky in court?) Mere “sweat of the brow” does not generate a new copyright in the US, so e.g. retouching work on a photo does not generate a new copyright and photos of a public domain artwork do not create a new copyright.

      This doesn’t touch on the old copyrights of the stuff Midjourney trained on to make its computer-mediated collages. Those copyrights still exist.

      Does the computer-mediated collage launder the previous copyrights? The answer is “do you feel lucky in court?”

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      so if he trained the model himself, would that make the work copyrightable?

      I think if he “trained” the model on art he himself created you might have an argument.

      • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        Not in the US, there art can only be created by a human.
        If it’s created by an algorithm or animal supernatural being it’s public domain.

        Interesting facts:

        • when photography was invented there was a debate whether photos can be copyrighted
        • if you claim to have written down something revealed to you by a supernatural entity, it’s public domain
        • the following image is public domain because it was taken by a monkey