Apparently, my submission to the US Copyright Office public consultation on generative AI and copyright was cited in the recent report by that office on the copyrightability of gen-AI outputs. The relevant passage:
Some commenters drew analogies to a Jackson Pollock painting or to nature photography taken with a stationary camera, which may be eligible for copyright protection even if the author does not control where paint may hit the canvas or when a wild animal may step into the frame. However, these works differ from AI-generated materials in that the human author is principally responsible for the execution of the idea and the determination of the expressive elements in the resulting work. Jackson Pollock’s process of creation did not end with his vision of a work. He controlled the choice of colors, number of layers, depth of texture, placement of each addition to the overall composition—and used his own body movements to execute each of these choices.
I haven’t read the full report yet, but I stand by my original statements, even if they don’t fully agree with my conclusions. Nice to be (partially) heard anyway, I guess!
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.