The artist:
tag is how this site tracks (and, if verified, conveys) copyright, and artists
always retain their rights to any derivative works created by an editor
.
By default, anything machine learning generated
is derivative. The person behind whatever tool creates the machine learning generated
image is not, by definition, an artist
. They’re more like someone ‘directing’ kisake.
So I personally would very much prefer that anyone creating machine learning generated
works gets a different tag, and are not permitted to use the artist
tag.
Simply put, the director of the AI is not the copyright holder of a unique work of art. They’re something else - we don’t know what they are, but for the purposes of the site where copyright is concerned the person directing the AI is handled the same as someone using a paper doll program like kisake, or something like PonyTown or PonyCreator.
At best, they are an editor:
, because their work is, by definition, derivative. Although their process is not an ‘editing’ process, the level of copyright which they have is that of an editor:
.
(Insert long discussion of ‘transformative works here’, but that discussion hasn’t resulted in any precedence yet.)
How this works today in practice is if there is a report for Rule #1 against an image tagged machine learning generated
, and if there is a verified artist:
tag on the image, then the verified artist would be contacted to see how they want the image handled. The assumption being that the image is derivative of one or more of their copyrighted works.
So, the original artist - the person with the verified artist:
tag - would be able to request a takedown of the image. Regardless of who ‘directed’ the AI that created the derivative machine learning generated
image, the original artist’s rights are reserved.
The uploader, or ‘director’, are either ignored, or are handled as if they were editor:
of the image.
On this site, the artist
always retains their rights. And the verified artist:
tag is a part of that process.
And, under current policies, someone ‘directing’ an AI is not going to be made a verified artist
. They do not have a unique body of copyrightable work.
People might give themselves an artist:
tag, but without a body of unique copyrightable works, they can’t be verified
.
Technically, right now the way I am handling any Rule #1 reports or takedown requests where the machine learning generated
tag is concerned, the person who uploaded the image is just the uploader, and the person who ‘directed’ the AI is treated as an editor:
. If there is an artist
tag on the image, and that tag is verified, then I contact the artist to find out how they prefer the reported image be handled.
Aside from that, I’m following our existing policies, informed by the first post in this thread:
We feel like artwork made by humans should be the forefront of the site. We may change our stance if the android revolution succeeds some time in the future. Until then, enjoy poni drawn by real people.
So, I really hope if a tag is used to identify the ‘director’ of the AI, it will not be artist:
.
That tag already is in use, and has some pretty hefty precedence, rules, and processes attached to it.