AI copyright?

[Lucan Unlordly]

By way of experimentation I've uploaded several photographs to an AI platform and asked for them to be turned into watercolour paintings.

The first photo was my own, a 'selfie' taken back in the 80's, so I'm pretty sure I can do what I want with the resulting image?

The second is a black and white photo dating back to the 50's, 'borrowed' from a well known archive site. The resulting full colour watercolour painting of a village scene goes a lot further than I'd expected adding appropriate detail - a bucket under the village pump etc., and apart from angle and form it's so significantly different from the B&W starting point that it would be hard to align the two for copyright purposes, or would it?

Note: I also make amendments using graphics software or live with a paintbrush.

 

[thetiger2015]

I think it could still fall foul of copyright laws - similar to music that sounds close to someone else's, it may be different but not a completely new piece. You're using elements of someone else's work.

I do also wonder about AI generated art, from scratch, it must get the base content from somewhere?

 

[Ozzy]

You're using elements of someone else's work.

This is my take also, that if art is copying someone else's art then it does breach. I've seen evidence of this with a music artist I listen too that ended up going public with their fallout with someone else. Was quite an interesting legal issue to follow.

I do also wonder about AI generated art, from scratch, it must get the base content from somewhere?

However, contradicting what I just said above and on this point - isn't all art inspired by other art. We do see it in music, in movies, in paintings. Humans take inspiration from other human artists, and add their own twist and piece of creativity - so it could be argued that is all AI is doing too.
So I've just argued a point with myself, which I guess means 'It's complicated'

 

[WaveJumper]

An interesting thought:

"Art, by definition, is a human made expression of ideas or emotions, requiring intent and often skill. Therefore, anything that lacks these qualities, such as natural occurrences or accidental creations without human agency, is not considered art".

I will now be looking at seeing how a few of my photos come out as water colours tonight could be a great idea for family Christmas presents. I know a bit early for thinking about this but when I saw some shelves in Tesco's last night full of Christmas fare I feel a need to get ahead of the game bring it on AI

Thanks to @Lucan Unlordly I feel a late night coming on today

 

[Ozzy]

I know a bit early for thinking about this

It's only 20 more Monday's till Christmas!

 

[fisicx]

There was a case a while back where a picture of a London bus had been heavily edited but still recognisable by the photographer. The photographer won.

Temple Island Collections Ltd v New English Teas Ltd - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Gecko001]

I can see the photo archive companies making a lot of searches for any of their photographs that they see on the internet that have been AI modified. It will give them an extra stream of income.

That's if it is copyright in the first place. Old photos from 1950's probably are copyright since the person who took it was probably still alive 70 years ago. Though, it might be worth checking that it is copyright.

 

[DontAsk]

However, contradicting what I just said above and on this point - isn't all art inspired by other art. We do see it in music, in movies, in paintings. Humans take inspiration from other human artists, and add their own twist and piece of creativity - so it could be argued that is all AI is doing too.

Yes, and anyone can learn to imitate a painter or write in the same style as an author, for example.

AI is no different except that, rather than focussing on one individual source, it can learn from a far wider cannon than most humans could cope with and it can do it at scale, in the blink of an eye.

Want a 1,000 "fake" Lowry's, no problem. A 1,000 Harry Potter stories, no problem ...

 

[Gecko001]

This photo is not being used to inspire another image. If it were, that would mean that it is inspiring itself. It is being modified by AI to make it look like a watercolour.

 

[DontAsk]

This photo is not being used to inspire another image. If it were, that would mean that it is inspiring itself. It is being modified by AI to make it look like a watercolour.

As such, it may qualify as transformative use.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

There was a case a while back where a picture of a London bus had been heavily edited but still recognisable by the photographer. The photographer won.

This I believe is the one where somebody tried to imitate the same image taken 50(?) years ago by recreating the same but taken at a later date featuring a modern bus. The essence of the photo hadn't changed hence the photographers claim being upheld in court

I can see the photo archive companies making a lot of searches for any of their photographs that they see on the internet that have been AI modified.

I'd agree but the level of modification is very significant on the sample I produced. They could take the same image and try to reproduce it using AI but that would mean knowing the exact instructions I used. Maybe AI could help them do that?

Old photos from 1950's probably are copyright since the person who took it was probably still alive 70 years ago. Though, it might be worth checking that it is copyright

It's definitely copyrighted. I only used it to see the results.

This photo is not being used to inspire another image. If it were, that would mean that it is inspiring itself. It is being modified by AI to make it look like a watercolour.

The view still exists, it's just up the road from me, so on this occasion I take a photo and call it my own. I'll let you know how close it comes to the B&S photo reproduced in watercolour.

 

[WaveJumper]

I suppose like everything else these days the clever photographers will be able to punch any "works" they feel copied into AI and soon come up with the answer.

Slightly different story but my son was having some issue wiring something up the other night, after a brief phone call I said its best I pop over once I had eaten my dinner and give him a hand. He phoned me back before I had left the house "got it all sorted dad, took a photo, put it in AI its all working now"

Damm AI is replacing even dads

 

[Chris Ashdown]

I suppose like everything else these days the clever photographers will be able to punch any "works" they feel copied into AI and soon come up with the answer.

Slightly different story but my son was having some issue wiring something up the other night, after a brief phone call I said its best I pop over once I had eaten my dinner and give him a hand. He phoned me back before I had left the house "got it all sorted dad, took a photo, put it in AI its all working now"

Damm AI is replacing even dads

Cannot make kids though can it

 

[Ozzy]

Cannot make kids though can it

Scientists are already creating embryos without sperm, just eggs, so it's only a matter of time before men are surplus to requirements. A world of only women and AI isn't far away

 

[SpriteScenes]

Artists usually describe their pieces in terms of the media, techniques, and tools they used. Many descriptions also include any reference material (live objects, sketches, photographs, etc.) and inspiration (other paintings, music, events, imagery from books, etc.). Digital media includes AI.

I would imagine art collectors would require such information before purchasing art, and it also protects the artist from any embarrassing discoveries that art enthusiasts might make.

 

[FreddyG]

However, contradicting what I just said above and on this point - isn't all art inspired by other art. We do see it in music, in movies, in paintings. Humans take inspiration from other human artists, and add their own twist and piece of creativity - so it could be argued that is all AI is doing too.
So I've just argued a point with myself, which I guess means 'It's complicated'

I think what gets some people's goat is when deliberate and obvious copying is not acknowledged. Films copy one another and great artists and usually the cinematographer openly admits to this, so Conrad Hall openly showed how he copied the style of paintings by Edward Hopper when he photographed The Road to Perdition for director Sam Mendes. Paintings by Vermeer and Rembrandt are all over films like Apocalypse Now, The Girl with a Pearl Earring, Witness and Loreno's Oil and many, many others.

An AI can copy a style of painting and use that for a film, but what has been happening with music has started to trip them up. They use spectral editing that allows them to single out an instrument, say piano or drums or whatever and use that in new renditions. The only problem there is that they use low-grade MP3 recordings and that is a so-called lossy data reduction. If one rips their music apart in some software that also uses spectral editing (e.g., Melodyne) one gets just a mushy, glitchy noise.

That is because a low-grade MP3 throws away most of the original sound of that instrument to save data and just gives the listener an overall sonic impression of the final mix. Images can be protected with watermarks.

 

[sarky]

I used AI to answer the question:
'In UK copyright law, a "derived work" is a new work based on an existing copyrighted work. It requires permission from the original copyright holder to create, unless it falls under fair dealing exceptions. The derivative work itself can also be copyrighted, but this doesn't affect the copyright in the original work.'

 

[SpriteScenes]

... I said its best I pop over once I had eaten my dinner and give him a hand. He phoned me back before I had left the house "got it all sorted dad, took a photo, put it in AI its all working now"

Damm AI is replacing even dads

At least he didn't set the chatbot on you!

I emailed my daughter two months ago. Last week, I received a reply from a chatbot! We had a friendly conversation - nicer than usual. I've been talking to it for a week now with no response, so at least it has something in common with my daughter!

My daughter thinks I don't know what's happening. I'll continue to play along. At least I'll be able to shout at it without falling out!