E’ diffusa in rete la notizia della citazione in giudizio per l’illecito in oggetto del 11 luglio 2023 da parte della Clarkson law firm, reperibile ad es proprio nel sito dello studio) (“web-scraping theft” per la chatbox BArd, concorrente di OpenAI, ad altro).
Provato Bard con richiesta di consulenza giuridica: fa diversi errori (serve altro allenamento)
Google scansionerebbe e raccoglierebbe qualunque dato passa per i suoi server (irragionevole dubitarne). Pare che non sia molto coperta da consenso contrattuale (nonostante nessuno riesca a farle modificare i moduli di accettazione iniziali)
Sono azionati diritto di privacy, di proprietà sui dati (non coincidente con la privacy; opinabile, ma dipende da come i due istituti son configurati nei singoli ordinamenti), di copyright, di concorrenza sleale (sub III, da § 153 ss.)
Si tratta di una prima immagine creata con l’AI di Midjourney , poi ritoccata con Adobe Photoshop e Ggiapixel AI.
immmagine creata inizialmente (sx) e immgine finale dopo adobe Photoshop e Gigapixel AI (dx)
Ne aveva chiesto protezione senza menzionare la modalità creativa.
Anche l’organo amministrativamente gerarchico rigetta perchè l’opera creata da AI non contiene creatività umana nè l’istante, pur invitato, ha distinto ciò che è creato da AI e ciò che è da lui creato.
Il lavoro fatto dall’istante era questo:
<<Because the Work here contains AI-generated material, the Board starts with an analysis
of the circumstances of the Work’s creation, including Mr. Allen’s use of an AI tool. According
to Mr. Allen, the Work was created by 1) initially generating an image using Midjourney (the
“Midjourney Image”), 2) using Adobe Photoshop to “beautify and adjust various cosmetic
details/flaws/artifacts, etc.” in the Midjourney Image, and 3) upscaling the image using Gigapixel AI>>.
Decisum conseguente:
<<In his Second Request, Mr. Allen asserts a number of arguments in support of his claim.
He argues that his use of Midjourney allows him to claim authorship of the image generated by
the service because he provided “creative input” when he “entered a series of prompts, adjusted
the scene, selected portions to focus on, and dictated the tone of the image.” Id. at 4. As
explained in his correspondence, Mr. Allen created a text prompt that began with a “big picture
description” that “focuse[d] on the overall subject of the piece.” Allen Sept. Creation
Explanation. He then added a second “big picture description” to the prompt text “as a way of
instructing the software that Mr. Allen is combining two ideas.” Id. Next, he added “the overall
image’s genre and category,” “certain professional artistic terms which direct the tone of the
piece,” “how lifelike [Mr. Allen] wanted the piece to appear,” a description of “how colors
[should be] used,” a description “to further define the composition,” “terms about what style/era
the artwork should depict,” and “a writing technique that Mr. Allen has established from
extensive testing” that would make the image “pop.” Id. He then “append[ed the prompt] with
various parameters which further instruct[ed] the software how to develop the image,”7 resulting
in a final text prompt that was “executed . . . into Midjourney to complete the process” and
resulted in the creation of the Midjourney Image above. Id.8
In the Board’s view, Mr. Allen’s actions as described do not make him the author of the
Midjourney Image because his sole contribution to the Midjourney Image was inputting the text
prompt that produced it. Although Mr. Allen describes “input[ing] numerous revisions and text
prompts at least 624 times” before producing the Midjourney Image, Allen Sept. Creation
Explanation, the steps in that process were ultimately dependent on how the Midjourney system
processed Mr. Allen’s prompts. According to Midjourney’s documentation, prompts “influence”
what the system generates and are “interpret[ed]” by Midjourney and “compared to its training
data.”9 As the Office has explained, “Midjourney does not interpret prompts as specific
instructions to create a particular expressive result,” because “Midjourney does not understand grammar, sentence structure, or words like humans.”10 It is the Office’s understanding that,
because Midjourney does not treat text prompts as direct instructions, users may need to attempt
hundreds of iterations before landing upon an image they find satisfactory. This appears to be
the case for Mr. Allen, who experimented with over 600 prompts before he “select[ed] and
crop[ped] out one ‘acceptable’ panel out of four potential images … (after hundreds were
previously generated).” Allen Sept. Creation Explanation. As the Office described in its March
guidance, “when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces
complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the ‘traditional elements of authorship’
are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user.” AI Registration
Guidance, 88 Fed. Reg. at 16,192. And because the authorship in the Midjourney Image is more
than de minimis, Mr. Allen must exclude it from his claim. See id. at 16,193. Because Mr. Allen
has refused to limit his claim to exclude its non-human authorship elements, the Office cannot
register the Work as submitted.>>
