from Politico...which is interesting because Jason Allen, whom you mentioned in reply 3, thinks the prompt he used to create that painting is so valuable it can't be revealed and should be protected by copyright, but the copyright process would require his revealing it. No such concern for real artists whose work is ripped off. I have to wonder, too, if his precious prompt named one or more real artists whose style he was ripping off via AI for "his" art.
https://www.politico.eu/article/artificial-intelligence-technology-art-regulation-copyright/
When Allen won the fine art competition, he infuriated illustrators, but he upset prompt writers too. By deciding not to reveal the words he used to create his artwork, he breached what had by then become an unwritten rule of the online AI art community. “I originally said I was going to publish the prompt when I was finished with my project,” Allen said. “I’ve since learned better: It’s like asking a chef to release his secret recipe.”
Even if a prompt is not guaranteed to return the same result every time it’s used, Allen said he had devised a general structure — a “seed” — able to consistently deliver images with a characteristic vibe. Like Vincent van Gogh, Allen’s seed won’t always create identical paintings; but like van Gogh, the image it generates will share a signature je-ne-sais-quoi. “It’s a high-value prompt,” he said. “That’s something people are searching for.”
Allen said he was talking to a lawyer to explore ways to protect his intellectual property, not only of the artwork, but of the prompt too. While he declined to disclose details, Allen said that copyrighting his prompt would “definitely be a possible direction we could take.” But he worried that the process might require sharing the prompt publicly. “It’d be in the public domain,” he said. “It’d be basically telling everyone not to think of an elephant.”
= new reply since forum marked as read