With speech bubble:

I made these initially for my personal use, but now I’m curious to see what you will make out of them.

Here are my own creations. All done with manual editing via GIMP:


(Trans Rights)


(Esperanto)


(Pakistan)


(Soviet Union) (Note that I’m not a USSR supporter, I made this one for shits and giggles)


(Anarcho-Communism)


(Nonbinary)


(Sapphic)

Made using Pony Diffusion V6 XL, a Shane Glines LoRA, and quite some inpainting and manual editing.

  • webghost0101@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    2·
    5 hours ago

    I am curious how far that actually goes.

    Just to name a few of potential edge cases that i think can still be copyrighted.

    • manually edited ai generations (like op)

    • the text prompt and custom workflow used to generate

    • a collage of specific ai generations expressed as a single work of art.

    • hperrin@lemmy.caEnglish
      1·
      5 hours ago

      The precedent so far is that you can only copyright the things you actually had a majority influence in creating. So if the AI did most of the work, you can’t copyright it. You can copyright the parts of it that were your sole creation, like pasting your logo on top of AI images, but the image itself is not copyrightable.

      Who knows whether that precedent will survive, though. Laws in the US don’t really mean anything anymore.

      • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        1·
        2 hours ago

        You’re spreading misinformation. There hasn’t been any ruling or precedent. The copyright office issued guidance, which reflects only the office’s interpretation based on its experience. It isn’t binding in the courts and guidance from the office is not a substitute for legal advice, nor it does not create any rights or obligations for anyone. They are the lowest rung on the ladder for deciding what law means.

        More importantly, the copyright office has been hosting public listening sessions asking for public comments for some time now in an effort to evolve their understanding of the subject.

        Here is a link to the actual guidance and an open letter by artists if you care to read it.

        • hperrin@lemmy.caEnglish
          1·
          1 hour ago

          There has been a ruling issued by a judge:

          https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/21/arts/design/copyright-ai-artwork.html

          https://cdn.patentlyo.com/media/2023/08/THALER-v.-PERLMUTTER-et-al-Docket-No.-1_22-cv-01564-D.D.C.-Jun-02-2022-Court-Docket-1.pdf

          And official statements from the copyright office:

          https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/us-copyright-office-withdraws-copyright-for-ai-generated-comic-artwork/

          They pretty much said what I said:

          “We conclude that Ms. Kashtanova is the author of the Work’s text as well as the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the Work’s written and visual elements,” reads the copyright letter. “That authorship is protected by copyright. However, as discussed below, the images in the Work that were generated by the Midjourney technology are not the product of human authorship.”

          • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            1·
            1 hour ago

            Read that again.

            The case was unique because an inventor named Stephen Thaler listed his computer system as the artwork’s creator, arguing that a copyright should be issued and transferred to him as the machine’s owner. After the U.S. Copyright Office repeatedly rejected his request, Thaler sued the agency’s director.

            He tried to get copyright for a computer as the author. Copyright is something only humans can hold. This is something entirely different.

            • hperrin@lemmy.caEnglish
              2·
              1 hour ago

              Read the actual decision:

              The decision was that the work was not copyrightable in the first place because it was made without human involvement.

              No misinformation here.

                • hperrin@lemmy.caEnglish
                  1·
                  45 minutes ago

                  It doesn’t matter what he argued. What matters is the judge’s decision, and that was about whether AI generated material is copyrightable in the first place. The judge agreed on a summary judgement based on the Copyright Office’s claims, not the plaintiff’s claims. That is legal precedent.

                  Even the article you just linked to bears the headline:

                  U.S. District Court Rules That AI-Generated Artwork Is Not Eligible for Copyright Registration

                  It even goes on to say:

                  Because Judge Howell found that “Recent Entrance” was never even eligible for copyright protection, she did not address Dr. Thaler’s work-for-hire argument. The only question relevant to the ruling was whether a work generated autonomously by AI is protectable under the copyright law – to which the court responded with a definitive no.