In a series of decisions, Allen's work became one of the first copyright requests rejected specifically for using AI tools - and an example of how these tools are raising new copyright conundrums at virtually every turn.
Many are trained on huge datasets that include copyrighted works without artists' consent, and in the US, a series of lawsuits could determine whether the applications fall under the framework of exceptions known as fair use. Meanwhile, the US Copyright Office holds that a computer program can't make copyright-protected art, frustrating people who see DALL-E or Stable Diffusion as tools akin to Photoshop.
Copyright exists to encourage the production of art, but copyright law also recognizes that most art draws on work that came before it - that's why exceptions like fair use exist. There's a constant balancing act in play, and when a new technology appears, it can require renegotiating that balance. Where will it fall in the case of AI? So far, nobody knows for sure.
[
add
]
[
|
|
...
]