. That’s great, but with so much AI being added to cameras, where is the line? When is a photo no longer a photo?
In this ruling, the Office determined that the act of describing a scene to an AI image generator wasn’t enough to count as a human author. Since telling a generative AI platform what to create isn’t protected, what does that mean for in-camera AI tools that take input and adjust them? An example photo created using Advanced A+ Assist. Did the scene actually look like this? How much was refined by AI? | Image via Canon
This line of thought raises further questions. If AI is involved following the time of capture, but markedly and demonstrably changes the final image as it’s presented, is that significantly different than AI being employed at the moment the shutter is pressed? If so, what makes the influence of AI different at that stage versus an earlier one?
And think also video game photography, architecture photography. At this point the most pure photography is probably that flashing moment, snapshot of a person’s life, framed. The rest is made up.
When AI is human curated, I suspect copyright will be granted.
Pretty sure that only applies to raw unedited ai generated images that were made from a text prompt and had no processing that involved human effort.
Copyright Office wants to protect wealthy copyright holders like Disney. Making AI not copyrightable might not be the way to do that. Wealthy folks would love to make AI generated copyrighted imagery.
Technology Technology Latest News, Technology Technology Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: petapixel - 🏆 527. / 51 Read more »