An artist who infamously duped an art contest with an AI image is suing the U.S. Copyright Office over its refusal to register the image’s copyright.

In the lawsuit, Jason M. Allen asks a Colorado federal court to reverse the Copyright Office’s decision on his artwork Theatre D’opera Spatialbecause it was an expression of his creativity.

Reuters says the Copyright Office refused to comment on the case while Allen in a statement complains that the office’s decision “put me in a terrible position, with no recourse against others who are blatantly and repeatedly stealing my work.”

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    its debatable who the artist is, however, because if you remove the ai from the picture he could never have made this, and if you remove the training data the results would also be different.

    Realistically: everyone whose data this was trained on should be included as authors if its not just public domain

    • 0ops
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Hmmm. This comment made me realize that these ai images have something in common with collages. If I make a collage, do I have to include all the magazine publishers I used as authors?

      Not defending the AI art here. Imo, with image generating models the mechanisms of creation are so far removed from the “artist” prompter that I don’t see it any differently than somebody paying an actual artist to paint something with a particular description of what to paint. I guess that could still make them something like a director if they’re involved enough? Which is still an artist?

      I dunno. I have my opinions on this in a “I know it when I see it” kind of way, but it frustrates me that there isn’t an airtight definition of art or artist. All of this is really subjective

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        if you make a magazine collage you’ve already paid all the magazine authors for their work by buying the magazine. I know its not perfect, but at least in a collage situation there is some form of monetary trail going back to the artists.

        If the AI company were to license their training data this would be an almost perfect metaphor. But the problem is we’ve let them weasel in without monetary attribution.

    • DumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      No but you don’t get it, they wrote a couple words and also they know how to use the spot healing brush in photoshop, they’re a REAL artist!

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      because if you remove the ai from the picture he could never have made this, and if you remove the training data the results would also be different.

      How is this different from any other art? Humans are “trained” on a lifetime of art they’ve observed. Are they to attribute all of their art to those artists as well?