A US appeals court upheld a ruling that AI-generated artwork cannot be copyrighted. The court affirmed that copyright protection requires human authorship, and since AI systems lack the necessary human creativity and intent, their output cannot be registered. This decision reinforces the existing legal framework for copyright and clarifies its application to works generated by artificial intelligence.
Benjamin Congdon's blog post discusses the increasing prevalence of low-quality, AI-generated content ("AI slop") online and the resulting erosion of trust in written material. He argues that this flood of generated text makes it harder to find genuinely human-created content and fosters a climate of suspicion, where even authentic writing is questioned. Congdon proposes "writing back" as a solution – a conscious effort to create and share thoughtful, personal, and demonstrably human writing that resists the homogenizing tide of AI-generated text. He suggests focusing on embodied experience, nuanced perspectives, and complex emotional responses, emphasizing qualities that are difficult for current AI models to replicate, ultimately reclaiming the value and authenticity of human expression in the digital space.
Hacker News users discuss the increasing prevalence of AI-generated content and the resulting erosion of trust online. Several commenters echo the author's sentiment about the blandness and lack of originality in AI-produced text, describing it as "soulless" and lacking a genuine perspective. Some express concern over the potential for AI to further homogenize online content, creating a feedback loop where AI trains on AI-generated text, leading to a decline in quality and diversity. Others debate the practicality of detecting AI-generated content and the potential for false positives. The idea of "writing back," or actively creating original, human-generated content, is presented as a form of resistance against this trend. A few commenters also touch upon the ethical implications of using AI for content creation, particularly regarding plagiarism and the potential displacement of human writers.
Summary of Comments ( 308 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43402790
HN commenters largely agree with the court's decision that AI-generated art, lacking human authorship, cannot be copyrighted. Several point out that copyright is designed to protect the creative output of people, and that extending it to AI outputs raises complex questions about ownership and incentivization. Some highlight the potential for abuse if corporations could copyright outputs from models they trained on publicly available data. The discussion also touches on the distinction between using AI as a tool, akin to Photoshop, versus fully autonomous creation, with the former potentially warranting copyright protection for the human's creative input. A few express concern about the chilling effect on AI art development, but others argue that open-source models and alternative licensing schemes could mitigate this. A recurring theme is the need for new legal frameworks better suited to AI-generated content.
The Hacker News post titled "US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted" (linking to a Reuters article about the same topic) has generated a robust discussion with a variety of viewpoints. Several commenters delve into the nuances of copyright law and the implications of this ruling.
A prominent thread discusses the distinction between "authorship" and "ownership." Some argue that while AI cannot be an author in the legal sense, the person who prompts or directs the AI could be considered the author, analogous to a photographer directing a model or a director guiding actors. This line of reasoning suggests that copyright should protect the creative effort involved in prompt engineering and curation, rather than the AI's output itself. Others disagree, asserting that the level of human input in AI art generation is often too minimal to warrant authorship. They believe that if the AI is doing the bulk of the creative work, copyright protection is not appropriate.
Another significant point of discussion revolves around the "idea-expression dichotomy" in copyright law. This principle states that copyright protects the specific expression of an idea, but not the idea itself. Some commenters argue that AI-generated art often falls into the realm of ideas rather than expression, meaning it should not be copyrightable. They draw comparisons to mathematical formulas or scientific discoveries, which are also not copyrightable.
Several users express concern about the potential chilling effect this ruling could have on AI art development. They worry that without copyright protection, artists and developers will be less incentivized to create and innovate in this space. Counterarguments suggest that open-source models and collaborative development could flourish in the absence of restrictive copyright.
The definition of "human authorship" is also a recurring theme. Commenters debate what level of human involvement is required for a work to be considered authored by a human. Some suggest a spectrum of human input, ranging from simple prompts to extensive editing and manipulation of the AI's output. The question of where to draw the line for copyright eligibility remains open.
Finally, some comments focus on the practical implications of the ruling. They discuss the challenges of enforcing copyright on AI-generated art, given the difficulty in tracing its origin and proving authorship. The potential for widespread copying and derivative works is also raised.
Overall, the comments on Hacker News reflect a complex and evolving understanding of copyright law in the context of AI-generated art. There is no clear consensus, but the discussion highlights important legal, ethical, and practical considerations that will need to be addressed as AI technology continues to advance.