The US Copyright Office offers creative workers a powerful labor protective.

  • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is going to quickly put the kibosh on companies trying to leverage AI for all their creative work. Not that I think AI can do a good job at it, but still. Companies won’t use AI if what it creates can’t be monetized and I think if it enters the Public Domain it can’t be, if I am not mistaken.

    • BritishDuffer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, it just means that a bunch of lawyers are going to get rich. They will force judges to legislate exactly what amount of human input is necessary for a work to be copyrightable, and there will be endless lawsuits arguing whether particular pieces of work have enough human creativity in them. Big companies aren’t going to let something like this stop them.

      • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s still better than the direction that we were going toward which was to simply obscure the fact that things were AI generated and allow companies to 100% monetize things. Rather people get some level of credit versus 0%.

      • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Does anyone know how much human involvement content farm “news” sites that use AI content generation actually employ? I get the sense that they just let the bot run and it scours other news sites for their top stories and then writes its own based on them. Or do they actually have humans telling the AI which events they want it to write about?

      • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah sounds like communism (aka not a monopoly so they can juice every dollar out of it while pushing “updates” that are as useful as the win 11 change)

    • tabular@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can’t use legal force to have a monopoly of distribution, thus you can’t charge people at that point (as others can redistribute it). You can however do it patron style and get paid before production. Not as much money in it when you have less control but I think that’s better than artifically making the digital work scarce in the age where copying is easy.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not necessarily. I recall one of the big issues was an animation studio using AI generated backdrops, but still drawing the critical elements in the scenes. So you need something convincingly “foresty” in the background but don’t care about the details, you start there, and then maybe carve out some path for the characters to be in and do the actual specific work there.

      If the studio found out that people could freely rip off their backgrounds, I doubt they would care. There’s a lot of “don’t care” creative work that has to be done to fill out the context around actual core creative works. Also lots of room for, say, one 3D model to be created and using some AI-enhanced version of “palette-swapping” to create diversity in mobs without actually doing work. The derivation may not receive additional copyright protection, but the base model that was altered would be covered, so attempts to rip-off the AI mutated model would still hit the base model’s protections. Even in constructing creative works that matter, you get to a basic design and then have AI take it away (coloring, rigging, animation might be AI enhanced beyond automation tools can provide already).