Support NeoGAF

[DoubleClutch]

US feds say AI-generated prompt outputs can't be copyrighted

A new report from the Copyright Office says fully prompt-generated works can't be copyrighted, but using AI tools doesn't automatically make a work ineligible.

www.pcworld.com

"The bottom line of the updated Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (PDF) is that a work of art needs "some degree of originality" and "human authorship" in order for it to be eligible for copyright in the United States. Crucially, simply plugging prompts into an AI image generator or text generator does NOT meet this burden. Because the author (or artist, or other relevant creative term) of a work is defined as "the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression," an AI system cannot meet this burden, even though it's using input from a human to generate its output."

I think this is interesting because it'll most likely limit AI usage in the creation of video games… which is probably a good thing.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

making A.I. art is like saying "I have an idea" and thinking that your idea is unique.

 

[Magic Carpet]

So is this good or bad for Nvidia?

 

[Closer]

If someone uses AI for everything and anything other than the story of a game built, can it still be copyrighted? If yes, than the limit is not that restrictive.

 

[mathello]

If the porn industry needs too, they will find a way, they defined VHS, DVD, WEB STREAMING, and Soon AI of your ex being hammered by a guy who also has your voice and face.

 

[March Climber]

making A.I. art is like saying "I have an idea" and thinking that your idea is unique.

This is the next part of the statement OP left out:

"The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output," says the report. "Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author, even if the work also includes AI-generated material."

So technically if they use AI as a tool or outline to their idea it can still count. So if someone uses AI to create a unique character design, but then they do the 3D modeling and small tweaks to the design themselves, it counts as original according to the report.

 

[DoubleClutch]

This is the next part of the statement OP left out:



So technically if they use AI as a tool or outline to their idea it can still count. So if someone uses AI to create a unique character design, but then they do the 3D modeling and small tweaks to the design themselves, it counts as original according to the report.

I doubt it's that simple. So if I generate a Mario like character, and change the hue of his shirt myself in Photoshop, the whole character becomes copyrighted?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

This is the next part of the statement OP left out:



So technically if they use AI as a tool or outline to their idea it can still count. So if someone uses AI to create a unique character design, but then they do the 3D modeling and small tweaks to the design themselves, it counts as original according to the report.

yeah. and A.I work flows can be quite involved. im thinking more like using A. I. as the end result (in a lazy way) :

"i just prompt my idea and the output is" my work""

 

[IAmRei]

Good, i hate "ai art" things :/

 

[Mownoc]

But what if someone generates something with AI and then manually edits and touches up what the AI outputs? (Which is what they should be doing if they want to use AI anyway instead of being completely brain-dead and releasing art with 6 fingers instead of taking 30 seconds to check it.)

Seems like this can't copyright thing could be easily overcome for companies just by doing that as then it would have "some degree of human authorship."

 

[rofif]

joining the "I hate ai" club

 

[chromhound]

 

[Cyberpunkd]

If the porn industry needs too, they will find a way, they defined VHS, DVD, WEB STREAMING, and Soon AI of your ex being hammered by a guy who also has your voice and face.

Scarily specific…

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

Really interesting to think about the possible implications and consequences of this, particularly with regards to business opportunities involving ai.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

This is the next part of the statement OP left out:



So technically if they use AI as a tool or outline to their idea it can still count. So if someone uses AI to create a unique character design, but then they do the 3D modeling and small tweaks to the design themselves, it counts as original according to the report.

Only something you made, or using a tool that assisted in making (which have existed for 20+ years before everyone calling everything "ai" now) is eligible for copyright, so yes that 3d model would have copyright, but only that specific 3d model; the original design you made wholly with prompts wouldn't be eligible and thus free for anyone to use.

 

[ReyBrujo]

If the porn industry needs too, they will find a way, they defined VHS, DVD, WEB STREAMING, and Soon AI of your ex being hammered by a guy who also has your voice and face.

Why your ex when you could choose literally anyone else

 

[RCX]

Good to see.

"I'm an AI artist!" is a phrase I can go an entire lifetime without hearing.

 

[Topher]

Sorry EverydayBeast

 

[TheDreadLord]

I don't get the hate. Human-created art has always been influenced by the works of other artists, cultural trends, and existing art forms. In the same way, AI-generated art is built on patterns and styles derived from analyzing existing artworks.

 

[Myths]

I don't get the hate. Human-created art has always been influenced by the works of other artists, cultural trends, and existing art forms. In the same way, AI-generated art is built on patterns and styles derived from analyzing existing artworks.

The hate is mostly contrived ass pull with a bit of yawn existentialism. It's just another form of art seeing pushback just like the camera and digital work, absolutely nothing new.

 

[K' Dash]

That is VERY fucked up, taking into account t that AI is fed art done by people.

 

[calico]

Presumably not much of an issue until you are getting to a point where a prompt is having an 'AI' generate the entire game. If you are making all/some of the individual elements in this way but then still having to combine them into a whole, you will have created a copyrightable whole.

If existing legislation did become a barrier to 'AI' use in media creation being viable, I imagine the legislation would be changed to make it viable.

 

[EDMIX]

making A.I. art is like saying "I have an idea" and thinking that your idea is unique.

Yup, that shit is like saying I "made" a pizza and i'm a chef and all that person did was order a pizza lol

Be like "ok doe, but I picked da toppings PLUS it takes brain power to pick up the phone and SELECT the toppings WTF"

 

[ReyBrujo]

I don't get the hate. Human-created art has always been influenced by the works of other artists, cultural trends, and existing art forms. In the same way, AI-generated art is built on patterns and styles derived from analyzing existing artworks.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

Basically nobody wants to lose their sustainability. Imagine if someone just could use AI to do what you are doing and find yourself worthless with only one day notice.

 

[Holammer]

I don't get the hate. Human-created art has always been influenced by the works of other artists, cultural trends, and existing art forms. In the same way, AI-generated art is built on patterns and styles derived from analyzing existing artworks.

Artists (& purists) hate it because it reduces tens of hours into work into a 10 second render.
Smart artists/companies will use it to train their own bespoke full fat models or LORAs with character sheets & concept art of their own. Greatly improving output.

 

[TheDreadLord]

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

Basically nobody wants to lose their sustainability. Imagine if someone just could use AI to do what you are doing and find yourself worthless with only one day notice.

Candlemakers and type writer makers also through the same at their time….

 

[calico]

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

Basically nobody wants to lose their sustainability. Imagine if someone just could use AI to do what you are doing and find yourself worthless with only one day notice.

Understandable, but nothing that hasn't happened countless times before with mechanization.

 

[ReyBrujo]

Candlemakers and type writer makers also through the same at their time….

Yes, and whip makers too. I agree with you there, I still can't believe the toll union is still getting new members since they are obviously going to disappear. However they all had a whole generation to adjust, it's not as if Edison invented the bulb and on the following day, even the following year, every city was illuminated with bulbs and electricity, it took a decade or more for many places.

Understandable, but nothing that hasn't happened countless times before with mechanization.

There's a different social conscience today. Or at least there used to until everyone started converting everything into anime.

 

[Guardian Monkey]

Just for fun I threw this doc into ChatGTP to see what it interpreted. ChatGTP seems to think while you can't have a character generated and copyrighted, you can have it copyrighted if you provide the general rough draft and then have AI clean it up. Same with voice work, if you own the samples you can then use AI for other voice generated works and still be copyrighted. Interesting, big corporations are going to love this it seems.

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyri...telligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf

So if you create a character you then can have AI clean it up or have AI voice used if you have original voices to be used as a reference?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, you can create a character and utilize AI tools to refine its design or generate voice outputs, provided that your human creativity significantly influences the process. The U.S. Copyright Office emphasizes that human authorship and creativity are essential for copyright protection under U.S. law. In its January 2025 report, the Office clarified that works resulting from AI-generated content are eligible for copyright if they exhibit substantial human creativity, such as expressive inputs or creative selection and arrangement by humans. theverge.com+2Reuters+2polygon.com+2
However, solely relying on AI-generated outputs without meaningful human intervention may not meet the threshold for copyright eligibility. The Office notes that prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to attribute authorship to the user. Therefore, when using AI to enhance your character's design or voice, ensure that your creative decisions and inputs play a significant role in the final product to qualify for copyright protection

 

[Cert.in.Death]

Respectfully, I dissent.

I fail to see why writing computer code qualifies for copyrightability but an AI prompt would not. The authorship element is present, it's simply a difference in degree and constitution.

Whether code or a prompt should allow the author to claim ownership of the output result is the larger concern, i.e. when it passes through the AI model. The authorship of the model is, to me, the crux of the legal dilemma.

 

[calico]

There's a different social conscience today.

Idk what makes you think that. There's always been some token (and sometimes more than token) level of pushback, and then producing more for less wins.

The abundance of food and clothing etc. made possible by earlier mechanization does mean society is perhaps less inclined to let the affected people starve than it used to be. I'm not sure society's concern will stretch to artificially keeping jobs around for the sake of giving people something to do.

 

[MiguelItUp]

This is good news. There are too many people that have generated art and acted like it was something that they spent so much time and effort on. When in reality, they took a few seconds to type some words an pressed enter. Is that work to some? Sure. But does it amount to the actual amount of work artists go through? No. Not at all.

 

[Killer8]

"Whatever can give the US a leg up over foreign countries" will actually be the real AI policy.

 

[spons]

So AI can consume copyrighted material, but its output isn't? Yeah fuck this.

 

[Mr Moose]

So does this mean you can use AI to make Mario game or whatever and there's fuck all anyone can do about it?

 

[GermanZepp]

For one not knowing we're the fuck the data base for the AI model comes from is not cool. Is an uneasy felling.

On the other hand, what stop people from generating and output, that being and image or a hit song, then recording the song with a band (or get an artist to paint the picture) and then claim ownership.

 

[calico]

So does this mean you can use AI to make Mario game or whatever and there's fuck all anyone can do about it?

No

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

So does this mean you can use AI to make Mario game or whatever and there's fuck all anyone can do about it?

....it doesn't cancel any existing copyrights or trademarks obviously no.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

I don't get the hate. Human-created art has always been influenced by the works of other artists, cultural trends, and existing art forms. In the same way, AI-generated art is built on patterns and styles derived from analyzing existing artworks.

One of the worst false equivalencies I have ever seen.

True artists create, no matter their influences. AI doesnt create, only steals the works of other people and add them a couple of extra fingers.

Without artists, AI wouldn't be able to PRODUCE (not create) anything, since it has the self-awareness and inspiration of a rock.

 

[ReasonBeing]

If the porn industry needs too, they will find a way, they defined VHS, DVD, WEB STREAMING, and Soon AI of your ex being hammered by a guy who also has your voice and face.

Kids in 20 years, "You watched real people have sex..... weird"

 

[diffusionx]

I don't get the hate. Human-created art has always been influenced by the works of other artists, cultural trends, and existing art forms. In the same way, AI-generated art is built on patterns and styles derived from analyzing existing artworks.

the hate comes from the fact that AI is literally soulless. I find it fascinating how quickly people were able to figure out what AIslop is, and the reason is that we have souls and the AI does not and it shows.

 

[Myths]

One of the worst false equivalencies I have ever seen.

True artists create, no matter their influences. AI doesnt create, only steals the works of other people and add them a couple of extra fingers.

Without artists, AI wouldn't be able to PRODUCE (not create) anything, since it has the self-awareness and inspiration of a rock.

There is no "true artist"… there is only the Void. Artists can create new things and also create things we've seen thousands of times before too… nothing cosmic dust. It's combinatorics/permutations consciously reinterpreted and applied by humans. In the case of a computer, it's doing the same thing through complex algorithms and statistical models all fed by tokenized words. Not always 1-to-1. To add to your point, however, AI will only be able to create as much as it is trained and curated to understand.

All this talk about "soul" is empty, vague anthropomorphic nonsense. The only thing that matters is the Void.