U.S.: AI-generated images have no human authorship

U.S.: AI-generated images have no human authorship

The artificial intelligence has brought about a real revolution in the creative process for both text and images, but it has also brought a controversial issue to the fore: who should be considered the creator of the photographs generated by these systems? However, this has also brought a controversial issue to the fore: the authorship of the photographs generated by these systems. Who should be considered the creator of such material? The AI or the human who gave it the indications to obtain this result?

The copyright office of States United States has been one of the first to weigh in on this controversial debate, stating that, in its opinion, AI-generated images based on text do not have human authorship. The entity provided a “style guide” where it clarifies that a photograph generated solely by a description does not qualify for human authorship.

A debate over the authorship of AI-generated images.

In addition to the above, the office also clarified its position by comparing the creative process by means of IA With “instructions for a commissioned artist”. “An artist may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such an extent that the modifications comply with the copyright protection standard.”, the institution said in comparing the case specifically to a magazine publisher hiring a photographer.

From what has been said it is understood that, in case there is a sufficiently “visible” or appreciable work so as to understand that the work in question is different from the original image generated by the IAit would be possible to grant authorship to the human. However, it will be rather complicated to delimit when a work qualifies as “new” after its respective modifications.

A legal loophole in which it is already necessary to intervene.

From the U.S. Copyright Office, they point out that every single case involving platforms like DALL-E y Midjourney will have their own individual treatment and study.

“In the case of works containing material generated by. IAthe Office will consider whether AI contributions are the result of a ‘mechanical reproduction’ or rather of ‘an author’s own original mental conception, to which (the author) gave visible form. The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool works and how it was used to create the final work.”the entity mentions.

Undoubtedly, this situation with the IA and the copyright is quite reminiscent of what happened with the selfie photograph that a monkey captured of himself using a human’s camera. David Slater was put on trial for PETA The PETA considered that the animal should benefit from the fact that it was the one who captured the image. The judges of USA mentioned that copyright protection could not be applied to an ape.

Similarly, it is likely that these rights cannot be applied to image generators despite the fact that we know that there are companies behind them. Furthermore, it is important to remember that the deal for the “monkey selfie” was that. Slater would donate 25% of the revenue generated from the image to organizations “dedicated to the protection of the welfare or habitat” of the animal, so something similar could happen with DALL-E o Midjourney.

We recommend METADATARPP’s technology podcast. News, analysis, reviews, recommendations and everything you need to know about the technological world.


Daniel Chapman