2023years9Beginning of month, The United States Copyright Office Review Board issued a decision——Reject the use of generative AI systems "Midjourney" Create works to be registered, This highlights the complexity the technology has created for the US copyright system.

Guidelines from the United States Copyright Office

This year3month, After a number of cases involving works made using generative AI raised concerns, The agency issued a policy statement, Indicates that when evaluating the registrability of a work that includes AI-generated content, It will ask first " 'works' Whether or not it was written essentially as a human author, computer (Or other equipment) Just an aid, Or the traditional elements of authorship in a work (literature, Artistic or musical expression or choice, Elements of arrangement) Is it actually conceived and executed not by humans but by machines" .

If the work contains material generated by artificial intelligence, The competent body will give first consideration "The contribution of artificial intelligence is 'Mechanical replication' The result of, And the author 'Original ideas of their own, (author) Gives it a visible form' The result of" . It will depend on the circumstances, How AI tools work and how they are used, It will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

If it can be determined that the work was created only by a machine, The agency will not register the work. The Copyright Office willMidjourneyAs an example of an artificial intelligence tool, It points out that these tools generate complex music from simple human cues, Visual and written works. The agency wrote: "Based on my agency's understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, The user does not have ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material. "

Disclosure and refusal

According to this guidance, A recently released decision by the Copyright Office holds that, Jason．M．Allen (Jason M. Allen) The name of "Space Opera House (Théâtre d'Opéra Spatial) " The two-dimensional artwork contains "Beyond the minimum" Artificial intelligence to create content, Therefore, content involving artificial intelligence must be rejected.

According to the agency's guidance, If AI-generated works also contain enough human authorship to support copyright protection, The agency will approve "The part of a work created by a human author" The registration of, But the AI-generated part must be dismissed, And need to disclose the use of AI tools.

By that decision, Allen did not disclose in the application that he usedMidjourneyThe circumstances of the creation of this piece, But as "First to win2022Ai-generated images of the Colorado State Fair's annual art competition" , His work attracted national attention. therefore, The censor asked for information about its use in the creative workMidjourneyMore information.

Allen explained in his response, He entered a lot of changes and text prompts, At least have624time, To get an initial version of the image. He also uses image processing softwareAdobe Photoshopto "Eliminate flaws and create new visual content, And through image processing toolsGigapixel AIThe image was carried out 'Upgrades' , Improved its resolution and expanded its size" .

The copyright Office asked Allen to give upMidjourneyCharacteristics of systematically created works, But he refused. By that decision, The censor therefore refused to register the work, Because it's not only "none 'Only confirmed (Allen) The so-called authorship' , It includes Alan andMidjourneysystematic 'Indivisible combined contributions' " .

Allen then asked the Copyright Office to reconsider his request, But the work's registration was again rejected. however, The agency does acknowledge that, UseAdobe Photoshopongoing "Visual editing" "Contains a sufficient amount of original copyright, It can be registered" , But useMidjourneySystem sumGigapixel AIThe created element still cannot be registered.

Allen: Rejecting AI-generated work is a value judgment

Alan is at2023years7A second request for review was filed in October, Several supplementary arguments are put forward. First of all, He thinks, "In findingMidjourneyWhen images generated by the system lack the human authorship necessary for copyright protection, The authority neglected to useMidjourneyThe essential element of human creativity required to program the creation of works" . He also said, According to fair use principles, The work should be registrable, Because of the principle "Transformational use of copyrighted material is permitted" . finally, Allen thinks, "Pass by refusing to registerMidjourneySystems and other generative AI platforms generate content, 'The agency is making value judgments about the utility of various tools' , moreover, Refusing to copyright the results of these tools will result in invalid ownership" , And the copyright office's registration requirements for AI-assisted works are too onerous.

The review committee is determined in its discussion and analysisMidjourneyCore images created are not protected by copyright, And because there is not enough information to make a judgment, So it's impossible to determine whereAdobe PhotoshopWhether the adjustments made in the program are copyrightable. Allen admitted, Gigapixel AIThe addition did not "Introduce new in the image, Original element" , This is not the same as authorship. The Copyright Office further explained its reasons for refusing to register the work again:

The committee considers that, "The actions described above by Allen do not make himMidjourneyThe author who created the image, Because he's rightMidjourneyThe only contribution to creating an image is the input of a text prompt that generates that image... According to the Copyright Office, On account ofMidjourneyThey don't take text prompts as direct instructions, Users may have to try hundreds of times to find an image they are satisfied with. That seems to be the case with Allen, He tried600Multiple prompts, Then from4A potential image (After generating hundreds of images) In the 'Select and crop one' Acceptable images... As the Copyright Office in its3As described in the October guide, When AI technology only receives cues from humans and produces complex writing, When responding to a visual or musical work, 'Traditional elements of authorship' Is determined and executed by technology, not human users. "

United States Copyright Office: No detailed disclosure is required

The decision also raises other points: (1) though "The process of prompting can involve creativity" , But Allen's use of prompts didn't reach that level; (2) There is no policy issue, because "constitution" and "Copyright law" Non-human creations are explicitly excluded; (3) The requirement to disclose AI tools does not make a value judgment on those tools, But only acknowledge " 'Human authorship is a basic requirement of copyright' This fact" ; (4) Allen's fair use argument is wrong, Because fair use has no copyright implications, It's a matter of use; (5) The requirement to declare the abandonment of non-copyright works is not meant to be onerous. On the last point, The agency explained:

"The Copyright Office does not require detailed disclosure of the specific identity and creative process behind the AI-generated material in the work. Our guidelines only require that applicants provide this in their application 'Brief description' , Such as 'Generated by artificial intelligence' Text. " (Be compiled fromipwatchdog. com)

TRANSLATORS: Wang Dan　proofread: Rason group



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.