The government didn’t cave. They said from the beginning that they wouldn’t intervene in this strike, and they didn’t.

Aged like milk

Wouldn’t matter. The Biden admin can move to dismiss without them. The motion is decided on the merits, which means it isn’t stronger just because it has Mohela’s signature on it.

The cases where copyright was denied involved prompt-driven generative AI. At some point the artist admitted that some of the creative decisions were made by the AI.

In your first example, you made all the creative decisions. The same is true of many filters, for example if I apply a “50s cinema filter” then I know exactly what it will do. The AI doesn’t get to make any decisions.

On the other hand, if you tell the AI to “add some clouds to the image” and the algorithm decides where they go, then the sky it produces is not protected. Only the elements you controlled are.

You name your favorite country, and I’ll tell you why they shouldn’t flex either.

Because they oppose Iran. Same reason why we provided weapons to Iraq.

They said it’s the closest in the region.

Which of its neighbors is more closely aligned with Western values?

It’s all just saber rattling, when was the last time Netanyahu actually launched attacks on another -

<interrupted by ear piece>

Oh.

For tomorrow’s headline, swap “Israel” and “Iran”. Repeat ad infinitum.

In this case, it sounds like all the key creative choices (eg form, color, background) were made by the artist.

The basic legal test has to do with control over the output. A prompt is not control. If you tell Stable Diffusion “draw a dog playing chess” then you do not control the creative choices made in the image. Thus, they are not protected.

That’s why Pollock paintings can be copyrighted: the key creative choices were controlled by Pollock. He wanted some blue streaks in one area and some red streaks in a different area.

To the extent that AI output can be controlled, it can be copyrighted. If you take a photo and tell an AI, “desaturate this photo” then there is only one possible outcome. The lack of color in the product was fully under your control. Likewise if you say, “Copy dog.gif from my Documents folder to the bottom left corner of the image”.

On the other hand if you say, “Add a dog to the image”, then not so much. Who determined what the dog would look like? Not you. So the dog is in the public domain.

And once in the public domain, it will likely remain there even if you iterate your prompts, like “Elongate the snout and widen the eyes”. For the same reason that you generally cannot copyright an image of the Mona Lisa even with minor alterations.

Yes, he wanted a blue streak in the upper left. That doesn’t mean he intended every last drop of blue paint exactly as it landed. He is nevertheless responsible for every drop of paint, because he controlled the paintbrush and he is the one who caused them to fall where they fell.

Likewise, a surgeon wants to cure a patient with a scalpel. He doesn’t necessarily intend every complication that happens to the patient. He is nevertheless fully responsible, because he fully controlled the scalpel that caused those complications.

Unlike Russia, Israel has no qualms about calling this a war.

But wars are divided into offensives, eg Ardennes Offensive, Tet Offensive, eg. This is the latest Israeli offensive in their war.

To the extent that you do not control a physical paintbrush, you lose your claim to copyright.

If you left a wet brush on a piece of paper and came back the next day to find the wind had blown it across the paper leaving a paint streak, that paint streak could not be copyrighted. You fully relinquished control of the brush to the wind.

In dealing with computers, the concept of “random” isn’t real.

Arguably the same is true of the wind. So to claim copyright, you cannot relinquish control to an inanimate object. Not to the wind, not to an AI.

Being in control does not mean achieving what you “want” or intend.

You are in control of your car, even if you unintentionally hit a tree. Likewise, Pollock controls his paintbrush, it is held by his hand which only he can move. If he flicks paint on his friend’s new jacket that might not be his intent, yet he is still 100% responsible for that outcome.

You directly control every pixel on your paintbrush, whether you want to or not. Who else controls it? It can only move when your mouse moves, which can only move when you cause your hand to move.

In contrast, you have some control over MidJourney output, but not direct control. Something could appear in the output that you did not cause.

Movies aren’t made solely by the director, but certain requirements must be met before one can claim copyright. Hundreds of people can offer their input but not be eligible for copyright, because offering input is not sufficient. There must be some direct control over an element of the output, whether that’s the cinematography, writing, or soundtrack.

It’s true that inanimate objects can’t claim copyright but that does not remove the requirement for direct control. If no human has direct control then the rights revert to public domain, for example no human has direct control of a sunset so a sunset cannot be copyrighted.

I think your approach would not work in practice. The test is not how it plays out when people are cooperating, but what happens when there is a dispute. And if the principle is “providing some input gives ownership” then the photographer, photographer’s assistant, agent, employer, and employer’s ex-wife will all sue each other over ownership.

In the music industry, you need to actually perform a piece to claim performance credit or specify the verses of a song that you personally wrote to claim writing credit.

However, when I start to force my will upon the photographs,

This sounds like a very easy test for an employer to pass. They force their will simply by telling you what to shoot.

But I gather that you won’t give them ownership quite so easily, they need to control every aspect of how you take the photos and thus reduce you to a “tripod”.

You can’t have two standards. Which is it? If merely exerting will is enough, then employers always own what photographers produce. If some degree of independence beyond a tripod allows the photographer to claim ownership, then AI users can’t claim ownership.

Can you articulate a single principle that is valid for both employers and AI users?

Why do you say your employer has no intent? They hired you with a particular product in mind after all. And they can do everything that you do with an AI: evaluate the results and tell you to try again.

What, specifically, do you do with an AI that an employer cannot do with a photographer?