Boudica
I'm here for Educational Purposes
Are you saying what I did has no value?
So if someone brings you a scribble of their vision, you make it real and producible... It's just tracing on steroids?!
-
I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...
Discussion Who "owns" the artwork? ... a conundrum when AI is involved
- Thread starter Boudica
- Start date
So if someone brings you a scribble of their vision, you make it real and producible... It's just tracing on steroids?!
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
No, that's what I was calling the use of "AI". Enter in a prompt, akin to entering it powertrace/livetrace values and pressing enter. And viola, the result is spat back out at "you" (the reason for quotes is I'm speaking of "you" in the general sense, not you specifically).
Johnny Best
Active Member
Only want to see that if it concerns a boob job.
bob
It's better to have two hands than one glove.
The Berne Convention of, if memory serves, 1886 specifically addresses this question. The creator of something owns the rights to that something unless the rights are specifically ceded. Even with AI output, the person that created the output owns the rights to it.
Texas_Signmaker
Very Active Signmaker
really only interested in the after photo.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
With regard to digital output, I believe one would have to go by the WCT (which has been implemented in the DMCA). And from what I have gathered, most of it is still related to the prompts as being more protected as that is creative expression by humans (and depending on what "AI" and version of said "AI" that prompt could generate different (if only slight) results without any changes). In order for that to be held for the output, there needs to be substantive involvement of said output by a human. Mainly due to the bona fides, or lack thereof, with how that "AI" is trained.
Now, give it time, I'm sure the lobbyists will get this changed.
Does binary work for you, Gino?
00001110101111000110100000111100111000001111100110010011000000001111000000110011110101111010101011111001010010011001001100000000111100000011001111010111101010101111100101001011110101010111110010100100000001111000000110011110101111010101011111001010010011001001100000000111100000011001111010111101010101111100101001011110101010111110010100101001111010111101010101111100101001001100100110000000011110000001100111101011110101010111110010100101111010101011111001010010000000111100000011001111010111101010101111100101001001100100110000000011110000001100111101011110101010111110010100101111010101011111001010010
11002101200011222000100101001101202110112220001001010011012021100002101200010020021122200010010100110120211000210120001002112210120002101200010020021122200010010100110120211000210120001002112220001001010011010010021122200010010100110120211000210120001002120...... more like this?
truckgraphics
New Member
If the customer sends you an original design or logo, they own the design.
If they send you the design in a format that needs to be cleaned up, and you do, then you own the use of the digital files for their purposes. But their artwork is theirs. It's probably theirs if they instructed AI to design it...And this is probably going to become a new area of law. So I just go on the principle that they own the design if they send it to me. I ask. If my Spidey sense says maybe they don't really own it, but who knows, I just have them put it in writing that they own it.
Then the fun starts...For example, the customer sends you a low resolution photograph of their logo (happens all the time). And you use your skills - or a subcontractor's skills - to make it a sharp eps file but don't sell the eps file back to them. Then you own that eps file to print their signs, shirts, wall art, etc. Later, they come to you and say, we've got a new printer that's not you. Can you send us the file? You own that eps file. And when they ask, I say no. (Unless they are good customers and I think they just want a different format - like shirts that we don't do. And sometimes I get fooled for being trustworthy). They came to me in the first place with rough artwork because the abandoned their last printer. So the cycle continues.
I'm fair and give the customer the opportunity to buy the eps/high resolution file for a reasonable amount when doing the initial work. (They do pay for it, but pay more if they want to keep it.) And an unreasonable amount when they want to take the work somewhere else.
If they send you the design in a format that needs to be cleaned up, and you do, then you own the use of the digital files for their purposes. But their artwork is theirs. It's probably theirs if they instructed AI to design it...And this is probably going to become a new area of law. So I just go on the principle that they own the design if they send it to me. I ask. If my Spidey sense says maybe they don't really own it, but who knows, I just have them put it in writing that they own it.
Then the fun starts...For example, the customer sends you a low resolution photograph of their logo (happens all the time). And you use your skills - or a subcontractor's skills - to make it a sharp eps file but don't sell the eps file back to them. Then you own that eps file to print their signs, shirts, wall art, etc. Later, they come to you and say, we've got a new printer that's not you. Can you send us the file? You own that eps file. And when they ask, I say no. (Unless they are good customers and I think they just want a different format - like shirts that we don't do. And sometimes I get fooled for being trustworthy). They came to me in the first place with rough artwork because the abandoned their last printer. So the cycle continues.
I'm fair and give the customer the opportunity to buy the eps/high resolution file for a reasonable amount when doing the initial work. (They do pay for it, but pay more if they want to keep it.) And an unreasonable amount when they want to take the work somewhere else.
truckgraphics
New Member
I'm not surprised. I've seen Getty Images (and/or other photo file sellers) watermark on public domain photos that they will happily sell back to you without the watermark. It it's not nailed down, the photo banks will try to sell it.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
I don't think that gives people the protection that they think that it gives them. Especially if their "spidey sense" is going off (even if it isn't, but especially if it is).
This is along the lines of those that put in clauses in their contract for "emergency repairs", but what they really mean is repossession. Some jurisdictions won't let it fly if it isn't explicitly stated as such, even if they do have means of making that protection available.
Gino
Premium Subscriber
Nope again.
Ternary is -1-0-1
Yours looks like you're beginning to read and write using the hindu-arabic system and you're up to 2. C'mon. c'mon..... you can do it.
Boudica
I'm here for Educational Purposes
Ok, but what if what they send you is a concept generated by a bot, and the end result after 8 revisions (done by me as vector art in illy) is quite different from the original?
truckgraphics
New Member
For practical purposes, you need to establish who owns the art at the beginning and end of the revisions process and be paid appropriately for the revisions...For what ifs, I suppose you could make the argument that AI invented the design so the company that gave it to you for revisions doesn't really own it. The counter argument is that some person instructed the machine to build something and the machine followed the person's instructions. So the person or company owns the design. I believe this is how AI projects will work out in the near future. That's how I plan to use it, but I'm spitballing here based on my analog view of the world.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
In order for "AI" to do this, it's all in the "training". This is the problem with using the output of "AI" for just about anything. The bona fidas isn't up to snuff. Adobe had it's issues with Firefly very recently and their EULA. MS/Github's Co-Pilot had similar concerns, just related with code (both public and private repos if memory serves, but at my age, that may be dubious (not like it was any good when I was younger)).
Like with many abstractions that are supposed "tools" to make things easier, they abstract too much and when it comes time that "AI" is consuming "AI" input (which is probably already happening) a sort of incestuous relationship, things will just be kinda muh at best. We all have seen this in different industries as it is, just it's now bundled under glorious "AI" compared to some other algorithm.
Like with many abstractions that are supposed "tools" to make things easier, they abstract too much and when it comes time that "AI" is consuming "AI" input (which is probably already happening) a sort of incestuous relationship, things will just be kinda muh at best. We all have seen this in different industries as it is, just it's now bundled under glorious "AI" compared to some other algorithm.
Attachments
Boudica
I'm here for Educational Purposes
Good advice. I'll come up with some boilerplate artwork ownership at the beginning of the process moving forward. This is the first project like this that I have done, and I was assuming that it would belong to the end customer because the concept was their idea - but I made it come to life
the Who owns it question came up when I was asked - not by the end customer but the in-between customer.
Hopefully the "can this be reused" question doesn't come up. If someone does want this artwork in their home, I will change it enough that it can't be considered the same thing.