Art is dead, dude. It’s over. AI won. Humans lost": A controversial artist is reportedly losing millions of dollars because the US Copyright Offic...

[Windows Central]

AI artist Jason M. Allen expressed his frustrations over losing millions of dollars to people who stole his AI-generated work. He is seeking the US Copyright Office to reconsider its ruling and copyright his AI-generated collection.

Art is dead, dude. It’s over. AI won. Humans lost": A controversial artist is reportedly losing millions of dollars because the US Copyright Offic... : Read more

 

[GraniteStateColin]

Clearly not a black & white issue and I respect those who think differently about this than I do. With that said, I think that to the extent the AI tool has done the majority of the work (admittedly "majority" can be subjective, but that's good for precedent to fill in via courts and common law), that work should not be copyrightable. That's the price you pay for using AI. The purpose of intellectual property law, both copyright and patent (not trademarks, those serve a different purpose) is to encourage artists and inventors to put their time and effort into creating, understanding that if they can't make money on it, they won't expend that effort.

AI dramatically reduces the effort. In the case of 100% AI, it reduces it to 0. So those certainly should not be copyrightable. So then it's a question of deciding how much AI is too much. For me, arbitrarily, that "majority" term is the key. If it's a tool to help with some aspects of the art (like adding lighting or shading), that should still be copyrightable, but if there's more AI than artist, then no.

... in my opinion.