I sent an email to Screen Actors Guild suggesting that they get their lawyers to basically de-commercialize any output from generative AI

Sent the same message to Writers Guild of America and American Federation of Musicians

Edit: Also sent this message to New York Time’s licensing department. I submitted this as a question into a form at the U.S. Copyright office, and their page said it’ll take 10 days for them to respond. Let’s see if I’ll get any answer…

Edit2: I think I’d have to phone USCO for this… Got an email saying “Please note that we answer questions concerning copyright law and the regulations, policies, procedures, and practices of the Copyright Office, including information relating to registration procedures for claims to copyright. However, we are prohibited by regulation from giving legal advice or offering a legal opinion. In addition, we are unable to effectively answer by email those questions that raise complex issues and require a dialogue. In such situations, we may encourage you to contact us by telephone via 1-877-476-0778.”

From: David Hsing 
To: info@sagaftra.org, newyork@sagaftra.org
Subject: The process used in generative AIs disqualify their products from copyright

Hello,

I'm a chip design engineer with more than 20 years of semiconductor industry experience. I would like to point out something that your lawyers should take a look at.

I must point out the fact that neural networks powering programs such as ChatGPT and Midjourney don't involve referents. That is, they are never about particular "things" but patterns to be corresponded to across the network. See Wolfram's explanation here regarding the workings of these networks ( https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/ ) 

Since these AI models don't and can't involve referents, they can't be creative. How can anything be creative _about_ nothing? Every creative endeavor involves intent and objects of intentionality (referents) i.e. there must be specific creative intent. It is impossible thus for these models to be creative, and thus nothing these models produce can be COPYRIGHTED (see definition of copyright here https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ "Works are original when they are independently created by a human author and have a minimal degree of creativity.") because copyright involves CREATIVITY. Please, you need to make this point. If you need more background on this line of thinking, I can provide it.

It is important to see who or what is creating what thing here. Is the act of text prompting, an artist using an art program to create the work? I don't think so. There are plenty of broken lines of intent here (i.e. the creation isn't independent). Did the prompt "artist" cough up all the details? Nope. Did the prompt "artist" intend absolutely everything that's going on on the computer screen (or the output) when there's so much going on? Nope! This AI generative process is NOT what is commonly referred to when referring to an artist directly creating anything.

This philosophical argument can translate into a legal argument disqualifying the commercial use of anything that's produced by generative AI.

Regards,

David