THE OWNERSHIP
OF CREATIVITY

The US Copyright Office originally approved an artists comic book style story "Zarya of the Dawn" which utilized AI technology to assist in creating the illustrations for the story. Upon a second review, the copyright office rescinded the registration due to the authors use of Midjourney in creating the illustrations. Well, the authors attorney filed a response to that refusal today. This case will gives creators who use AI insight into the copyright-ability of illustrations created with the assistance of AI tools such as Midjourney. I am of the belief that this authors use of Midjourney should not take away her rights as an author. I further believe this is distinguishable from the paradise AI image which was wholly created by AI. What are your thoughts on this?

SD is very good at replicating art styles, it can replicate styles like Leonardo Divinci, even though Divinci only has about 20 surviving paintings.
So, theoretically, if someone wanted to train an AI on a different style, would they be able to do so with as little as 20 images?
Thank you for your time, love the software you and your team has created!

Could an AI model be taught to NOT generate infringing content? For example, could you show the model copyrighted content (for example, the characters of Spongebob) and train the model not to produce artwork that includes those characters?

One or more of the AI programs allow someone to have artwork created “in the style of” one or more particular artists - does the artist have any cause of action?

Elaborating on the above, if someone typed in “Spongebob and Mr. Krabs drinking at a bar,” would it be beneficial if the model wouldn’t generate that because it would be infringing?

Even if an artist can’t legally allege copyright infringement, should they still be credited for their original style being the inspiration for a work created by AI?

One of the issues is because AI works may be so easily generated should the law then restrict protection in the works but focus on the protection of the AI technology instead? eg through patents

At this point we are doing models to train images. When we reach human neuronal synapsis learning (synapse models), we will face the same questions than we are doing now: Will a company own the synapse forms "ideas" or dreams?Daniel explained it clearly: You will not ask Heminway how to write a book.Copywriting a "collective human experience" (dreams or images drawn by an artist), should be address to a specific finished product with (at least) 50% intervention to further modify and "own" that property.

On the flip side does the panel think it is fair for someone to exactly copy an AI generated work as it was not created by a human?

Next time please don’t use your airpods mic. They have lagg and your mics keeps hanging when you talk. Or just set the mic to your laptop.

What will happen when students start using Large Language Models (LLMs) to write their term papers? Do they get to claim that the papers they’re turning in are original because they prompted the AI?

AI makes cheating WAY easier. There was no way to write a whole paper in a few minutes without directly copying….

Question for Daniel -Artists are generally less than 3% of any population, so by sheer logic wouldn't less than 3% of the training data be artistic? It seems like people against AI are under the assumption that most of the training model is from Artists, but that seems unlikely, what are your thoughts?

To follow on Daniel's argument, I think that the fact that society has a tedency to fear generative AI, comes from the fact that we tend to automatically assume that AI will produce better content... But is the speed/ease of a production process is what determines the quality and originality of the final output ?
PS: Thanks for this great debate