0

I understand AI art isn't copyright material. However, I am curious if the creator generates AI versions of the creation are those AI versions the copyright of the creator? I'm not sure how else to word this. I also didn't see any obvious answers.

Improve this question
4
  • In any case they're either the original work or a derivative of it, so
    – Stack Exchange Supports Israel
    Commented Jun 2 at 21:19
  • 2
    Does this answer your question? Do creative works that utilize generative AI require attribution?
    – Trish
    Commented Jun 3 at 4:20
  • Are you asking if the human creator of a work that an AI was trained upon has copyright rights in an AI generated image that draws upon the human creator's work in the AI's training?
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Jun 4 at 0:26
  • Also, I presume that you are saying "Can I?" in the sense of "Is it legal to?", rather than "Is it possible to?" (Surely it is possible to do). And, suppose it is illegal. Who would be in a position to sanction you in some way for violating the law? Law only has reality as it presents itself in a specific procedural context.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Jun 4 at 0:36

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
-1

AI neither creates nor removes copyright. Legally, an AI improving images is the same as a spellchecker improving written texts.

Improve this answer
1
  • A better analogy might be using Photoshop. It doesn't matter whether the touch-ups are done by AI or a human.
    – Barmar
    Commented Jun 4 at 0:08
-1

AIs create copies, not derivative works

If you have a photograph in which copyright exists, then the human photographer owns the copyright (barring transfers or work for hire). They are the only one who are allowed to make copies of that photograph.

Passing it through an automated enhancement, is making a copy and the copy has the same copyright as the original. It is not a derivative work because there is no human author, so it doesn’t have an independent copyright.

Improve this answer
3
  • 1
    "the copy has the same copyright as the original." Suppose that the AI generated work draws on lessons it generalized from being trained on dozens of different human author's works in addition to the primary input that is enhances (e.g all living cubist painters when asked to make a cubist enhancement of your pre-enhanced work)? Because AIs don't just create copies in the usual sense of the word. If it is a copy, whose work is it a copy of? Just the primary source, or all still living cubist painters too? If it isn't a copy, and can't be a derivative work, is it just in the public domain?
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Jun 4 at 0:28
  • @ohwilleke: Computer source code is routinely transformed to executable code. That transformation is always considered as a copy; it neither introduces new copyright nor does it remove copyright. The transformation is automated, and draws on lessons from prior source code transformations.
    – MSalters
    Commented Jun 4 at 7:56
  • @MSalters But it still isn't introducing contributions from different authors than the primary one.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Jun 4 at 17:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .