Regardless of where you stand on AI vs Artist divide, the claim that prompted AI work contains no human authorship is clearly false.
Let's suppose I as a blind muse conceive of an amazing vista and describe in painstaking step-by-step instructions how to paint it, to a person with no creativity but a gift for mechanical paint strokes. Does that have human authorship? I think everyone would agree. Some would say the author is mostly the muse and partially the painter, some would argue only the painter, but all would agree that in this situation the art cannot exist without the muse.
Next let's suppose I as a blind muse conceive of an amazing vista and have a device I can use to execute those painstaking step-by-step instructions in how to paint it. Does that have human authorship? Again, I think most people would say yes.
Now let's support I as blind muse have a device I can press buttons to execute preprogrammed macros of movement. Again, I think most people would say this has human authorship.
Finally, let's take the above example and say that instead of macros the blind muse has the ability to verbally describe their creation and the device executes the appropriate macros, appropriate being learned from the macro executions of many other artists (who should be compensated fairly btw). Human authorship? Yes. And we've just described Midjourney. If you agree the first scenario has human authorship then you agree this one does, because we're agreeing on human authorship being that the creative output of a human is the necessary input to create a work of art.
A tabletop gaming startup executive who said “Art is dead, dude. It’s over. A.I. won. Humans lost.”
Who would remember this dude after his fifteen minutes of fame from trolling an art competition? Is there any further value he can derive from that without generating further notoriety? Would such a person deliberately say ridiculous things to bait sites like gizmodo into reporting on them and reminding people that he exists? Surely not!
“The Copyright Office’s refusal to register Theatre D’Opera Spatial has put me in a terrible position, with no recourse against others who are blatantly and repeatedly stealing my work without compensation or credit,”
Regardless of where you stand on AI vs Artist divide, the claim that prompted AI work contains no human authorship is clearly false.
Let's suppose I as a blind muse conceive of an amazing vista and describe in painstaking step-by-step instructions how to paint it, to a person with no creativity but a gift for mechanical paint strokes. Does that have human authorship? I think everyone would agree. Some would say the author is mostly the muse and partially the painter, some would argue only the painter, but all would agree that in this situation the art cannot exist without the muse.
Next let's suppose I as a blind muse conceive of an amazing vista and have a device I can use to execute those painstaking step-by-step instructions in how to paint it. Does that have human authorship? Again, I think most people would say yes.
Now let's support I as blind muse have a device I can press buttons to execute preprogrammed macros of movement. Again, I think most people would say this has human authorship.
Finally, let's take the above example and say that instead of macros the blind muse has the ability to verbally describe their creation and the device executes the appropriate macros, appropriate being learned from the macro executions of many other artists (who should be compensated fairly btw). Human authorship? Yes. And we've just described Midjourney. If you agree the first scenario has human authorship then you agree this one does, because we're agreeing on human authorship being that the creative output of a human is the necessary input to create a work of art.
The byline on the image is funny, it says "(c) wikimedia commons, fair use". While Wikimedia commons claims it's public domain.[1]
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Th%C3%A9%C3%A2tre_D%...
His work? Meaning the prompt text?
A tabletop gaming startup executive who said “Art is dead, dude. It’s over. A.I. won. Humans lost.”
Who would remember this dude after his fifteen minutes of fame from trolling an art competition? Is there any further value he can derive from that without generating further notoriety? Would such a person deliberately say ridiculous things to bait sites like gizmodo into reporting on them and reminding people that he exists? Surely not!
Copyright right violations, all the way down
“The Copyright Office’s refusal to register Theatre D’Opera Spatial has put me in a terrible position, with no recourse against others who are blatantly and repeatedly stealing my work without compensation or credit,”
Good. Trademarks and copyright is bullshit to begin with.
The only requirement I can get behind is adding the name of the original creator.