I’ve generally been against giving AI works copyright, but this article presented what I felt were compelling arguments for why I might be wrong. What do you think?

  • TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This photography analogy is getting more tiresome the more it is repeated. It reduces the extensive work and techniques that photographers do to “using a tool”, ignoring we also have tools like photocopiers whose mechanical results are not considered separate artworks, while also trying to pass the act of iterating prompts and selecting results as something much more involved than it actually is. Like many people pointed out already, what is being described is the role of a commissioner or employer. Is Bob Iger an artist because he picked what works are suitable for release? I don’t think so.