But the fight may not be lost as the court allowed the artists to claim copyright infringement against Stability AI, Midjourney, and DevianArt, on workpieces that the artists had filed a copyright for.

Artists lose first copyright battle in the fight against AI-generated images::But the fight may not be lost as the court allowed the artists to claim copyright infringement against Stability AI, Midjourney, and DevianArt, on workpieces that the artists had filed a copyright for.

  • Sabre363English
    34•8 months ago

    So now artists are going to have to actually apply for copyright? What the fuck happened to intellectual property?

    • @krayj@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      24•8 months ago

      In the US, copyright is implicit. All work is instantly protected by copyright the moment it is created. Registering with copyright office is optional/voluntary. I think the judge’s comments that you are referring to was probably referring to the works where copyright protections were waived by the artists for works placed into public domain (which, on Deviant Art, covers a vast amount).

      • @ParsnipWitch@feddit.deEnglish
        11•8 months ago

        works placed into public domain (which, on Deviant Art, covers a vast amount)

        So especially poor and young artists get exploited. Why am I not surprised.

    • @Mahlzeit@feddit.deEnglish
      8•8 months ago

      Bit of a long story…

      Some forms of intellectual property require registration. For example patents. Patents are supposed to encourage technological development by allowing inventors to monetize their work. There’s a lot of justified criticism of that system but, on the whole, it seems to have worked.

      Originally, US copyrights worked in exactly the same way, for the same purpose. The requirement to register for copyright was dropped in 1978. However, registration still plays a role in US law for some legal purposes.

      So what happened to copyright?

      Europe developed a different copyright tradition, in the 19th century, while it was stilled largely ruled by oppressive autocracies. The monarchs of the 19th century were not the overpaid figureheads that still exist in some countries.

      Copyrights today last (usually) until 70 years after the author’s death, while patents which underpin tech progress last (usually) only 20 years in total. You can see that this is very different. That copyright revolves around the death of a person shows how it is a personal privilege, as were normal in aristocracies. The purpose is to enable people to extract money without any consideration for the interests of society as a whole. It’s about rent-seeking.

      Nowadays, US content production (Hollywood, etc.) dwarfs that of Europe. The better copyright laws of the US may have something to do with that. Although the US has gradually shifted over to the rent-seeking European model, there are still some advantages left.

      As the content producers in the US grew, the US gradually switched over to the rent-seeking model. I think this is largely because the content producers also gained more lobbying powers.

      • P03 LockeEnglish
        8•8 months ago

        The biggest trick the rich ever pulled was fooling the public into thinking copyright benefits everybody. It doesn’t. It only benefits them. It will only ever benefit them.

      • Sabre363English
        1•8 months ago

        My understanding has always been that artworks that you create are your intellectual property that is automatically copywrited, at least in the United States. From the article it seems like that is either not true or it’s being ignored by the court.

        • brianorcaEnglish
          3•8 months ago

          It is automatically copyrighted, but you do have to register before you bring a legal action for infringement.

    • @commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      2•8 months ago

      intellectual property is a fiction. it’s a term used to snow people. there is no such thing, nor should there be.