L’immagine fumettistica creata tramite intelligenza artificiale non è protetta come opera dell’ingegno : decisione interessante dello US Copyright Office

dal sito https://processmechanics.com/author/vanl/ si apprende della decisione February 21, 2023 dello US Copiright Office (poi: c.o.)  nel caso  <Zarya of the Dawn (Registration # VAu001480196)> .

Viene ivi offerto anche il link diretto al testo di quest’ultima.

In breve il c.o. nega la registrazione (là necessaria a quasi ogni fine) perchè il fumetto (o meglio: le immagini) sono state geenrate da intelligenza ariticiale (Midjourney: generatore di immagini) anche se su input (prompts) della artista (Kristina Kashtanova, poi: KK).

Noin può infatti ravvisarsi “work of authorship”.

Mon è servita l’allegazione per cui KK avesse provato moltssimi prompts per generare l’immagimne migliore, poi scelta per il fumetto

Il c.o. invece ammette il copyright sui testi e sull’arrangement di immagini+testo.

Nella decisione è desritto bene il funzionament di Midjourney (lato utente : non ovviamnte la logica algoritmica alla base)

<< Based on the record before it, the Office concludes that the images generated by
Midjourney contained within the Work are not original works of authorship protected by
See COMPENDIUM (THIRD) § 313.2 (explaining that “the Office will not register works
produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically
without any creative input or intervention from a human author”). Though she claims to have
“guided” the structure and content of each image, the process described in the Kashtanova Letter
makes clear that it was Midjourney—not Kashtanova—that originated the “traditional elements
of authorship” in the images.
Ms. Kashtanova claims that each image was created using “a similar creative process.”
Kashtanova Letter at 5. Summarized here, this process consisted of a series of steps employing
Midjourney. First, she entered a text prompt to Midjourney, which she describes as “the core
creative input” for the image.
Id. at 7–8 (providing example of first generated image in response
to prompt “dark skin hands holding an old photograph –ar 16:9”).
14 Next, “Kashtanova then
picked one or more of these output images to further develop.”
Id. at 8. She then “tweaked or
changed the prompt as well as the other inputs provided to Midjourney” to generate new
intermediate images, and ultimately the final image.
Id. Ms. Kashtanova does not claim she
created any visual material herself—she uses passive voice in describing the final image as
“created, developed, refined, and relocated” and as containing elements from intermediate
images “brought together into a cohesive whole.”
Id. at 7. To obtain the final image, she
describes a process of trial-and-error, in which she provided “hundreds or thousands of
descriptive prompts” to Midjourney until the “hundreds of iterations [created] as perfect a
rendition of her vision as possible.”
Id. at 9–10.
Rather than a tool that Ms. Kashtanova controlled and guided to reach her desired image,
Midjourney generates images in an unpredictable way. Accordingly, Midjourney users are not
the “authors” for copyright purposes of the images the technology generates. As the Supreme
Court has explained, the “author” of a copyrighted work is the one “who has actually formed the
picture,” the one who acts as “the inventive or master mind.”
Burrow-Giles, 111 U.S. at 61. A
person who provides text prompts to Midjourney does not “actually form” the generated images
and is not the “master mind” behind them. Instead, as explained above, Midjourney begins the
image generation process with a field of visual “noise,” which is refined based on tokens created
from user prompts that relate to Midjourney’s training database. The information in the prompt
may “influence” generated image, but prompt text does not dictate a specific result.
, MIDJOURNEY, https://docs.midjourney.com/docs/prompts (explaining that short text
prompts cause “each word [to have] a more powerful influence” and that images including in a
prompt may “influence the style and content of the finished result”). Because of the significant
distance between what a user may direct Midjourney to create and the visual material
Midjourney actually produces, Midjourney users lack sufficient control over generated images to
be treated as the “master mind” behind them.

Pertanto secondo il c.o.:

<<The fact that Midjourney’s specific output cannot be predicted by users makes
Midjourney different for copyright purposes than other tools used by artists. See Kashtanova
Letter at 11 (arguing that the process of using Midjourney is similar to using other “computerbased tools” such as Adobe Photoshop). Like the photographer in Burrow-Giles, when artists
use editing or other assistive tools, they select what visual material to modify, choose which
tools to use and what changes to make, and take specific steps to control the final image such
that it amounts to the artist’s “own original mental conception, to which [they] gave visible
form.”15 Burrow-Giles, 111 U.S. at 60 (explaining that the photographer’s creative choices made
the photograph “the product of [his] intellectual invention”). Users of Midjourney do not have
comparable control over the initial image generated, or any final image. It is therefore
understandable that users like Ms. Kashtanova may take “over a year from conception to
creation” of images matching what the user had in mind because they may need to generate
“hundreds of intermediate images.” Kashtanova Letter at 3, 9>>.