You can buy a license to use the work from the original author.
Why would you give a machine money? Just use the generation tools yourself and then you have the copyright. If there was no human input then it’s just worthless AI slop.
If that company has people curating the results, then they have a reason to exist and they would have a valid copyright.
If the company is just feeding customer prompts into an AI, then there’s no copyright, but also no value added vs just using stable diffusion or a hosted service yourself.
I just think any AI image that can’t be copyrighted wouldn’t be worth buying a license for anyway, since that implies no human was involved in creating it.
Tricky case. You can pay someone to make a custom work you hold the copyright on. But you can’t pay for a machine to do it if you want the copyright.
You can buy a license to use the work from the original author.
Why would you give a machine money? Just use the generation tools yourself and then you have the copyright. If there was no human input then it’s just worthless AI slop.
To be clear, you’d give the company that owns the machine money.
Except that it sounds like no, you wouldn’t by this court case, right?
I agree. :)
If that company has people curating the results, then they have a reason to exist and they would have a valid copyright. If the company is just feeding customer prompts into an AI, then there’s no copyright, but also no value added vs just using stable diffusion or a hosted service yourself.
I just think any AI image that can’t be copyrighted wouldn’t be worth buying a license for anyway, since that implies no human was involved in creating it.