For one, it has been established that (for now) an AI cannot hold any form of IP right as it is not a natural person. Thus, only the company that owns the AI tool, the person inputting the text prompt or the owners of pre-existing copyrights and trademarks can claim ownership. ...
Essentially, an AI-enabled machine can autonomously perform tasks, whether it's creating art, operating self-driving cars, or combating cyber threats. ChatGPT, a product of OpenAI, is a manifestation of this AI power. 'GPT' stands for Generative Pretrained Transformer, a term describing a serie...
the closest analogy comes to my mind is being art director. He has a big influence on the final art piece, so it probably is a joint work. So in that case it could be said that it’s a joint work between prompter and AI, but AI cannot hold copyright, so all rights would be ...
there are still a lot of unanswered questions about the legality of ai-generated art, but erin jacobson, a music attorney in los angeles, notes that those uploading ai-made material that clearly violates copyright could be held liable. whether the streamers will be liable is more nuanced. ...
but this never really happened. People still paint with oils and learn to play the guitar. Copyright and payments will cause arguments, jobs will come and go, ethics will provide endless fuel for debate, but art itself is too vital to be killed by new technology. Whenever it seems threatene...
(Hertzmann, 2018). As such, he contends that art is necessarily authored by social agents, and thus AI algorithms (as understood today) cannot be credited with authorship of art. McCormack et al. build on these ideas in the context of theEdmond de Belamyphenomenon (McCormack et al., ...