The issue is fairly simple. Anything "created" by AI is not copyrightable. Last week, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell upheld the March determination by the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of art created was not copyrightable.
This isn't a surprise to me or anyone who paid any attention to Naruto v. Slater, No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018), i.e. the notorious Monkey Selfie case. When the liberal 9th Court of Appeals leans into such a conservative opinion, it's highly unlikely, they, much less any other court will change its collective mind.
The basis of copyright law is to protect the rights of humans who create. Not animals, not computers, not anything that doesn't have some kind of human intervention.
This is the reason I've avoided AI for both writing, book covers, and miscellaneous swag. I've paid extended licensing fees to humans for the use of their art for my covers and swag. I've also had a couple of long talks to my cover designers/artists about whether or not they use AI. I had a feeling it was only a matter of time before the judicial system came down against the copyright of such an AI use.
It doesn't mean con artists aren't already using AI to rip off people. And the publishing industry is already up in arms. Hell, so is Hollywood. The big studios were planning on using AI to screw over writer and actors. Hence, the ongoing strikes of the SAG/AFTRA and WGA. This case is a major blow to the corporate plans.
But in the long run, the decision is a boon for all artists, no matter our medium. If we put the work in, we deserve the copyright and the money that comes from our work.
No comments:
Post a Comment