Hacker News Reader

Comment by elicksaur | Hacker News Reader

If I lend you my camera to take pictures you choose, do I hold the copyright because I own the camera?

(No)

"you choose" is a pretty important factor in this.

Do “you choose” to angle the phone slightly up 5 degrees to capture a bit of the sky? Or do “you choose” the moment to take the photo when the timing is right? There is always some creative decision involved by the person who presses the shutter

What if I ask a stranger to take my photo, and it turns out he's Ansel Adams?

He's going to make some decisions about the framing etc, as one of the best photographers of all time.

So if I ask someone to take a photo, but I tell them "tilt the camera", I am the copyright holder, but if they do so without me "prompting" them, then I no longer am?

Am I understanding you correctly?

What if Louis XVI ask Antoine Callet to use a lighter color for his skin? Does he own the Callet painting copyright?

You can prompt whatever you want but won’t own the copyright. Photographer will choose himself if he follow or not your "prompt", what side and angle he tilt, the zoom, when to press the shutter…

What if I set a delay but it is not technically me who presses the key? Would that count because it was me who set the delay? What if I tell a friend to set the delay?

All this is pretty much grey area anyways. Both sides have merit.

To me, it just shows how bogus the whole idea of copyright is.

Agreed.

I would not say bogus, I would just say it's a bit too easy to get copyright on a photograph.

But it would be difficult to adjust that without making the rules even messier.

No, because I was asking.

I deliberately added:

> but if they do so without me "prompting" them, then I no longer am?

We prompt the AI. I do not see how AI generated art cannot be copyrighted, TBH, but I am against copyright in general (or the way it is done abroad).

Must read:

https://mises.org/mises-daily/patents-and-copyrights-should-...

https://fee.org/articles/mises-on-copyrights/

TL;DR, FWIW:

Mises supported intellectual property rights, including copyright, as a necessary legal tool in a free-market economy to incentivize creativity and innovation. He viewed intellectual property as a socially constructed right to protect creators' labor but cautioned against excessive or monopolistic extensions that could harm competition and economic efficiency.

Rothbard opposed intellectual property rights, including copyright, as state-enforced monopolies that interfere with the free market. He argued that ideas, being non-rivalrous, cannot be owned like private property. Rothbard believed intellectual property could be protected through voluntary contracts, without state involvement, in a truly free market.

To say on topic:

Mises: Likely supports copyright for AI-generated art if the human user contributes creatively (prompt, modifications).

Rothbard: Opposes copyright for AI-generated art, as he believes intellectual property should be based on human labor and not state-enforced monopolies.

There's plenty of jurisprudence on these issues for posters here to interact with, but in classic HN style, they will just keep pushing these arguments back and forth based on the headline for this one instance. People just want to play law, not actually interact with it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com