SteelPoint
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2014
- Posts
- 803
Or... or... might some clever oik at the company which invented the software or the equipment which "enabled" the photographer make some claim on the matter..?That's the core of the whole AI art debate - the existing images the AI was trained on. They belong to the original artists.
No. A road sign, for example, may contain images (a graphic representation of something) but that would be generally be characterised as a sign, not "art".
Copyright in photography always belongs to the photographer, the person with the camera. The "scene" you describe is the set or the studio, but it's the captured image that belongs to the photographer. That's the commodity, not the room it was taken in.
Photography is, and will ever be, a contested "art" form. Because you can hold and point an object and it then takes 500 snaps in 20 seconds, one of which is deemed by the lovies to be "artistic" - that entitles you, having hastily jettisoned the 499, to be considered an artist, does it? Or, for that matter, in any way talented above the common herd..?
Copyright in these matters, it seems to me, really does need to be revisited as a concept by legislatures.