goldenyears Loc: Lake Osewgo

I had the same experience... I photographed an airplane parked on a public airport and when the owner saw it on my website he demanded I remove it. I told him he didn't own the copyright to my photograph, so I wouldn't remove it. Now, had he said something like "look, I wasn't supposed to be in that town seeing my mistress, and if my wife sees this photograph I'm going to have a lot of explaining to do about why I was there, please, please, please remove it," I would have told him he didn't own the copyright to my photograph, so I wouldn't remove it.

TomHackett Loc: Kingston, New York

Maybe you could offer to take it off your website permanently if he would purchase a perpetual, exclusive license for it. In the hypothetical case, that might have been worth $$$$ to him. Of course, if you threatened to show it to his wife you might be flirting with extortion.

As long as you weren't trespassing, he doesn't have a case. It hinges on "expectation of privacy," which he obviously doesn't have when parking his plane at a public airport. A few years ago I was taking photos of old stone houses for a historical society display. If the owners were home, I would always explain what I was doing. I had some enjoyable cordial conversations. In one case, the owner was not home, so I set up at the edge of the street and started photographing. A neighbor, who had been asked to "keep an eye" on the house came over and asked indignantly whether I had permission to photograph the house. Rather than get into an involved discussion of privacy and intellectual property issues, I simply said "yes," and that was the end of it.

Stephan G

OK. What you produced was "easy to duplicate". Which I interpret as "I made a rubber stamp." You have been easily replaced by a computer program. (Did you use copyright programs to develop your programs?)

I have a problem with religious entities stealing images and using them to promote their particular versions without paying for the original concept by an artist or painter or creator. And stealing them by not getting permission from the creator of the original Art.

And I do see the use of AI as a weapon of robbery when the program uses copyright materials and/or composites to make its Art without paying for it.


Below a composite from several people with my thanks to them:

Michelangelo was asked how he went about chiseling the statue of David. He replied that he took pieces of marble and chipped away the parts that did not belong.

The questioner then asked if he himself could make one.

The reply was that he should get a good chisel and hammer. Then do what Michelangelo did.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

No, l wrote real programs using real programming languages. I’m not sure who “owned” COBOL, I guess a committee did. FORTRAN was owned by IBM, but the actual implementations were owned by the implementers {none of which agreed with the standard}. The original “C” was developed by AT&T , but the variants were developed by groups. In general, the design of a language had some kind of protection {probably not copyright}, but the actual code developed belonged to whom ever wrote it. Some modern software is protected by “copyleft” {yes, that term is used}

I own books which start with verbiage giving the purchaser permission to use the code. Punct.

Stephan G

From Britannica:
COBOL, in full Common Business-Oriented Language, high-level computer programming language, one of the first widely used languages and for many years the most popular language in the business community. It developed from the 1959 Conference on Data Systems Languages, a joint initiative between the U.S. government and the private sector. COBOL was created to fulfill two major objectives: portability (ability of programs to be run with minimum modification on computers from different manufacturers) and readability (ease with which a program can be read like ordinary English). Although COBOL’s popularity declined beginning in the 1990s, many large organizations, such as banks and government agencies, still used the language in the early 21st century.


From the above, the owners were, in part, the people of the United States of America. As also stated, it was a Language.

Rewriting a book, for example, into another language does not transfer ownership of the writings to the new printing. Something to read: https://jerichowriters.com/book-translation-rights-everything-you-need-to-know/

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

No new material here - I formerly taught this at the college level. I don’t see they’re giving credit to Grace Hopper, the Naval Officer who chaired the committee that wrote COBOL. I attended a presentation by her after she retired from the Navy; one time, someone got on elevator and mistook her uniform for something warn by an elevator operator {she was an incredibly humble lady}. She dated back to the time when computers were made from physical relays; she claimed that once the computer wasn’t working properly, until she found a moth that was preventing a relay to work correctly, so she taped the moth in their logbook with the words “bug found in relay”, thus inventing the term “debug”. We need that kind of wit today.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

While discussion has been going on here concerning AI-"created" images, I've been having similar discussions with my friend who is currently finishing her MFA program in Illustration. As you understand what illustration is in the art world, you see that this question is more important to them than to us for a number of reasons, primarily that their livelihood depends on working in a legally and ethically correct manner.

I'm not going to try to share in detail all that we have discussed, but my distillation of it all boils down to really two main points:
1. No copyright-protected material should ever be included in any AI knowledge base.
2. AI-generated images are not copyrightable.

The most interesting recent actual case involves the San Francisco Ballet. That organization has transitioned its advertising to using AI-generated images. The reaction has apparently been swift, vocal, and negative. (I can't make a personal observation, since I'm almost 2,000 miles away.) So the word is that it clearly matters to at least some folks.

Please note that I'm not a Luddite who is opposed to all progress and all AI. But, as for many things, I think there is a time and place for it. There was a story on the news recently that AI is set to replace about one in six managerial jobs in the near future. If you are not already retired, how do you feel about that?

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

There is nothing really special about “AI” - deep down, what it does is just another form of what has always been done. If “AI” sells you a ticket to a play, it simply looks to see what is available, and sells one to you. A generation ago, computers replaced certain ‘blue-collar’ workers; now they are replacing certain ‘white- collar’ workers.

The ‘Turing Problem’ which seeks to determine whether human intelligence is involved, is becoming more and more complex. As far as I know, the ‘halting problem’, which attempts to use automation to determine if any automata will terminate, is still a thing.

Stephan G

Back in the early sixties, I was in a club called the Data Club. For a little while I did a job at the nearby University's computer labs. This was a little bit before the IBM calculator dropped down from being three room with high air conditioning bill and using cards for moving information and "Programs", down to a hand-held calculator. My job was going into those rooms and vacuuming the bugs that got zapped on the cores. This added to mythos of "debugging" the computer.

From Britanicca:
By the second decade of the 19th century, a number of ideas necessary for the invention of the computer were in the air. First, the potential benefits to science and industry of being able to automate routine calculations were appreciated, as they had not been a century earlier. Specific methods to make automated calculation more practical, such as doing multiplication by adding logarithms or by repeating addition, had been invented, and experience with both analog and digital devices had shown some of the benefits of each approach. The Jacquard loom (as described in the previous section, Computer precursors) had shown the benefits of directing a multipurpose device through coded instructions, and it had demonstrated how punched cards could be used to modify those instructions quickly and flexibly. It was a mathematical genius in England who began to put all these pieces together.

The aforementioned Jacquard Loom is an interesting and functioning computer. It is still being used in the fabric industry.

FWIW. My contention was in the direction that IA should not be allowed to replace innovative works. Nor should it be allowed to interrupt innovative thought.

PS., I usually work through the postings. You know, the last lines of the paragraph. Thanks.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

It is important to note that each person ‘stood on the shoulders of giants’, and today is considered to be a ‘giant’ himself. None of the pioneers would have ever dreamed where the field would go. Honestly, when I took my first programming class {fall 1969}, I could never have imagined where we are today; I wish I could live another 50+ years, and see what “impossible” problems they have conquered by then.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Which brings up an interesting question.... What about future performing artists just licensing their images and AI generated video, thereby doing away with the film process altogether.

Stephan G

This was discussed sometime ago. I wish I could recall the participants of the discussion. The question related to CGI (https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-cgi-meaning-definition/). The talk was in regard to having images that outlast the actors. And working these into the movies.

It may have been a TED talk.

stangage

If an artist creates a painting does the maker of the paint brush employed have copyright privilege? Or perhaps the company that formulated the paints?
Just askin!

GeneG

"Expectations rise to meet new technology."
- Gottfried's corollary to Parkinson's Law

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

======================================================

To: Tom Hacket and others here on this thread.
Ref: Copyright and AI

Those who are following this thread might wish to read the below article found at the below URL

Title: "US Copyright Office rules AI-generated artwork, content not legally protected" dated: 2/24/23.
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3872614-us-copyright-office-rules-ai-generated-artwork-content-not-legally-protected/

A copy of the original letter from the United States Copyright Office to the attorney of the "works" is below:
https://www.copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf

========================================================

In Closing... There is "NO" doubt that this "issue" will be debated and continue for years...
........ above is just current information

Cheers
GoldStar46
George Veazey
####