Nice concept, just don't expect to have any copyright to the (images in the) comic, as the USPTO has mentioned [0]. If you used an AI text generator as well, expect to not have copyright to that either. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, copyrights and patents are inherently anticompetitive.
That interpretation probably does not pass muster. The guidance from the US Copyright Office leans on substantial human authorship or creative changes or interpretation of the output of AI generative tools.
Probably better to just link the actual guidance, it’s only a couple pages.
From the linked document. To me this is the same interpretation, but IANAL.
Individuals who use AI technology in creating a work may claim copyright protection
for their own contributions to that work. They must use the Standard Application, 39
and in it identify the author(s) and provide a brief statement in the “Author Created”
field that describes the authorship that was contributed by a human. For example, an
applicant who incorporates AI-generated text into a larger textual work should claim the
portions of the textual work that is human-authored. And an applicant who creatively
arranges the human and non-human content within a work should fill out the “Author
Created” field to claim: “Selection, coordination, and arrangement of [describe human-
authored content] created by the author and [describe AI content] generated by artificial
intelligence.”
In particular, this sentence:
> “Selection, coordination, and arrangement of [describe human- authored content] created by the author and [describe AI content] generated by artificial intelligence.”
Sounds to me like a DJ selection or like Duchamp's found objects as the creative element.
Lengthy copyright may be uncompetitive, but the absence of it would also be surely? If I create something and an already large business can just take it and use it without any recompense, doesn't that merely entrench their market position?
> If I create something and an already large business can just take it and use it without any recompense, doesn't that merely entrench their market position?
There's already numerous posts from artists claiming their work was copied verbatim (or near-verbatim) by major corps. Fighting it in court will take years and cost a fortune they don't have.
>If I create something and an already large business can just take it and use it without any recompense, doesn't that merely entrench their market position?
There's the rub, isn't it? At a certain point of AI progression, if you don't point it out, no one would know it's AI, as it's indistinguishable from a human creation. Even tools based on AI to detect AI creations will themselves succumb to the fact that the generator AI can use the information gleaned by the discriminator AI to improve; this is in fact how generative adversarial networks work.
I wonder if soon in the future highly skilled humans will have to prove their works weren't made by AI.
> If the Office becomes aware that information essential to its evaluation of registrability “has been omitted entirely from the application or is questionable,” it may take steps to cancel the registration. 44 Separately, a court may disregard a registration in an infringement action pursuant to section 411(b) of the Copyright Act if it concludes that the applicant knowingly provided the Office with inaccurate information, and the accurate information would have resulted in the refusal of the registration.
Is the distinction between generating full works via AI and using AI in a manor indistinguishable from Grammarly respected when admitting to any use of AI?
https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/22/23611278/midjourney-ai-co...