Artist is Suing Copyright Office For Refusing to Register His AI Image

Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 424 points – Artist is Suing Copyright Office For Refusing to Register His AI Image
petapixel.com

An artist who infamously duped an art contest with an AI image is suing the U.S. Copyright Office over its refusal to register the image’s copyright. 

In the lawsuit, Jason M. Allen asks a Colorado federal court to reverse the Copyright Office’s decision on his artwork Theatre D’opera Spatialbecause it was an expression of his creativity.

Reuters says the Copyright Office refused to comment on the case while Allen in a statement complains that the office’s decision “put me in a terrible position, with no recourse against others who are blatantly and repeatedly stealing my work.”

282

You are viewing a single comment
View all commentsShow the parent comment

If I use a combination of words to commission an artist to paint a picture, I don't own the copyright on that picture.

If it's a commission, you might. Depends on the how the contract is worded.

Okay, let's see the contract in this AI case that grants this man the copyright.

The contract is set by the company, let's say Midjourney, which passes ownership to the person who generate the "art." What needs to be defined is if ai generated art is art? So far, no one seems to have a definite answer. I come down on the side of yes, but there are a lot of others that say no.

Which company passes the ownership to the person in its contract? Midjourney does not, I just looked:

By using the Services, You grant to Midjourney, its affiliates, successors, and assigns a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, sublicensable no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Content You input into the Services, as well as any Assets produced by You through the Service. This license survives termination of this Agreement by any party, for any reason.

https://docs.midjourney.com/docs/terms-of-service

They make it clear that you do not own the copyright on the images you create. Did the artist suing the copyright office use this company?

https://help.midjourney.com/en/articles/8150363-can-i-use-my-images-commercially

reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Content You input into the Services, as well as any Assets produced by You through the Service.

In no way does Midjourney own the image, they only have the ability to "reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute".

That has absolutely nothing to do with who owns the copyright. I already quoted to you from their own ToS and linked to it.

It has everything to do with what the copyright gives them the right to do, which is: reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute". They cannot claim ownership of the art. If you were to create art that is illegal, they do not own it and are not responsible for that.

And since you want to quote the TOS, here is the first part which you ignored:

You own all Assets You create with the Services to the fullest extent possible under applicable law. There are some exceptions:

Your ownership is subject to any obligations imposed by this Agreement and the rights of any third-parties.

If you are a company or any employee of a company with more than $1,000,000 USD a year in revenue, you must be subscribed to a “Pro” or “Mega” plan to own Your Assets.

If you upscale the images of others, these images remain owned by the original creators.

You said it was based on the contract. The ToS literally says Midjourney owns the copyright. This is pretty cut-and-dried.

I'm getting really tired of trying to explain this to you. Their copyright does not give them ownership, it gives them very specific rights. These rights are:

reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute

If you create CSM with Midjourney, they are not the owners and it cannot be used to sue them. They don't want that smoke. They do not want ownership. They make it very clear in the part you skipped over that you own your work, they simply own the right to "reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute".

This is literally all about copyright. Hence the copyright office being sued.

The article makes that perfectly clear.

The article makes it perfectly clear that he used Midjourney.

Midjourney makes it perfectly clear that he does not own the copyright to anything he uses Midjourney for.

I'm not sure what your point is.