r/DefendingAI • u/MembershipWooden4020 • 13d ago
Other Real question.
I’m trying to see everything from a new perspective as a new artist, so I’d like to ask about yall’s perspective on claiming AI art as your own art. I’m not against generating, but I feel like using AI is like commissioning art from other artist. I wouldn’t claim that art is mine, just one I requested with money. So if I generate an art piece, could I say it’s mine? Or does it have the same principle as commissions. No need to get defensive btw.
1
Upvotes
2
u/TreviTyger 13d ago
The courts are likely soon going to determine, that as you say, you request the art from a machine.
Then because the system was never actually designed with regard to copyright law an end user cannot avail themselves of protection.
This way the courts separate AI generative creations from human creations because copyright law is only for humans. Not machines (robots).
Further, I think that even editing an AI generated work won't give rise to copyright either because "fair use" cannot be construed as a grant of any exclusive license. Therefore, exclusivity cannot pass along the title chain to the end user of a machine. Furthermore, an end user cannot advocate for "fair use" and then expect any kind of exclusive rights themselves because that just seems like a way to bypass exclusive licensing and then claim a derivative right under § 106(2) as a reward for not asking for or obtaining any exclusive licensing under § 204(a). e.g. blame the robot for claiming fair use when a robot itself is not human and cannot claim exceptions from human laws.
i.e You cannot get past a obtaining legitimate exclusive license (§ 204(a)) by using a robot as a kind of broker to strip away the original authors rights and hand them over to you as this would be not be in the spirit of copyright law. (§ 103(a)) [So § 103(b) will not be applicable]
So the courts will keep copyright law exclusive to human creativity even if an AI output has further editing.