For Amusement Purposes Only.
Changeling poet, musician and writer, born on the 13th floor. Left of counter-clockwise and right of the white rabbit, all twilight and sunrises, forever the inside outsider.
Seeks out and follows creative and brilliant minds. And crows. Occasional shadow librarian.
#music #poetry #politics #LGBTQ+ #magick #fiction #imagination #tech
It looks like the key in the ruling here was that the AI created the work without the participation of a human artist. Thaler tried to let his AI, “The Creativity Machine” register the copyright, and then claim that he owned it under the work for hire clause.
The case was ridiculous, to be honest. It was clearly designed as an attempt to give corporations building these AI’s the copyrights to the work they generate from stealing the work of thousands of human artists. What’s clever here is that they were also trying to sideline the human operators of AI prompts. If the AI, and not the human prompting it, owns the copyright, then the company that owns that AI owns the copyright - even if the human operator doesn’t work for them.
You can see how open this interpretation would be to abuse by corporate owners of AI, and why Thaler brought the case, which was clearly designed to set a precedent that would allow any media company with an AI to cut out human content creators entirely.
The ruling is excellent, and I’m glad Judge Howell saw the nuances and the long term effects of her decision. I was particularly happy to see this part:
In March, the copyright office affirmed that most works generated by AI aren’t copyrightable but clarified that AI-assisted materials qualify for protection in certain instances. An application for a work created with the help of AI can support a copyright claim if a human “selected or arranged” it in a “sufficiently creative way that the resulting work constitutes an original work of authorship,” it said.
This protects a wide swath of artists who are doing incredible AI assisted work, without granting media companies a stranglehold on the output of the new technology.
I have to admit, Barbie becoming a Chinese feminist icon was not on my 2023 bingo card. Anyone taking bets on when we’re gonna get a kpop version of this classic?
It’s not necessarily unethical, but it’s usually a waste of time. Kinda like Twitter.
Personally I’d prefer not to have someone speaking for me, despite the supposed anonymity of the accounts. If you post any amount of content, it’s likely the account can be linked back to you after the sale, which could prove problematic depending on what the new owner does with it.
But I’m a bit paranoid about such things after experiencing internet stalking. I don’t see anything morally wrong with it, just that consequences from the sale might affect me negatively in the future.
I wasn’t gonna cry until I saw the drawings on the walls - that’s a piece of animation history right there, and something you just can’t recreate in a new space. If you framed some of that sheet rock and saved it for a generation or two, the cash from the collectors auction you’d get for it would probably pay enough to bring back Space Ghost.
“I ever tell you about the time my buddy Keith and I were on the top of a burnin’ building, and we had to fight our way down like five floors of zombies and― Hey, wait a second…I guess that was you guys. Oh, shit, man, I can’t wait to tell Keith about that one!”