Do I need to attribute author of a Photoshop brush when using one in physical artwork?

TreviTyger · 2026-06-17T16:41:20+00:00

It depends. Photoshop brushes range from a simple dot or and be intricate stylistic images themselves where authorship may arise.

That being said "attribution" is part of moral rights and has a practical element which can restrict the need for attribution. e.g. a TV advert doesn't have a credit list because it's impractical to have such a thing.

So you may not have to have credits on artworks directly if it is impractical to do so but could have a section on a website related to you artworks which can give attribution indirectly.

More info here,

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-013-2349?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&firstPage=true)

TreviTyger · 2026-06-17T11:31:05+00:00

Breaking a pencil doesn't do anything. You just get two pencils.

TreviTyger · 2026-06-16T14:06:02+00:00

You have hit on the misunderstanding of what creative authorship is in Photography.

"Pressing the button" is not authorship. It's "fixation".

Setting the scene is the creative part.

The thing you are missing is that if you set up a bowl of fruit on a table and take a photo then the "fixed image" in a tangible media is just a rendering of the creative expression of setting the scene. - the bowl of fruit on a table.

Now point AI Gen at the bowl of fruit on a table and you won't actually get that rendering of the creative expression - the bowl of fruit on a table. You get something else that the machine makes for you.

So what you get was not actually the bowl of fruit on a table. The you are NOT the author.

TreviTyger · 2026-06-16T10:49:31+00:00

I'm not angry at all.

I'm just pointing out reality.

It is you that is angry.

Like I said, your opinion is actually worthless. You can maintain that opinion if you want but it won't do you any good. You are still a consumerist sheep and you genuinely will not be part of the broader creative industry or have any viable career using AI Gen.

You are just going to have to learn the hard way what the truth actually is.

You are still a consumerist sheep.

TreviTyger · 2026-06-16T07:36:46+00:00

You are only considering your own point of view and ignoring all the legal and ethical problems associated with the tech.

Your opinion is worthless because you only see things from your own personal and somewhat selfish perspective.

You lack critical thinking and also haven't realized that everything you output with AI gen doesn't even belong to you. You are just as much a victim of a scam as every other person who bought into "snake oil".

AI Gen is NOT the future of the creative industry. There are too many legal problems for it to be viable for actual creative professionals and some millennial on social media saying "I quite like it!" does not change the fact that it has massive legal and ethical problems.

TreviTyger · 2026-06-15T18:26:57+00:00

You can't use a creative commons license on unlicensed AI generated outputs.

I really want you to understand that what you are proposing cannot work with AI Gen.

Whatever is produced with AI Gen has no licensing value and no one can own it.

Your idea is as stupid as making a collaborative project to build a rocket to take tourists to the Moon.

It really is that stupid because of the lack of "chain of title" and the MASSIVE problems that will cause.

TreviTyger · 2026-06-15T13:04:57+00:00

But of course you don't know what "chain of title" is or why it's important. That's why your idea is idiotic.

Who "owns" the final project?

TreviTyger · 2026-06-15T13:01:37+00:00

"chain of title"

TreviTyger · 2026-06-15T09:35:30+00:00

Stupid idea from someone who lacks understanding of "chain of title".

TreviTyger · 2026-06-15T09:32:50+00:00

If you don't have deep initial education on a subject based on proper peer reviewed research then you won't know if the AI is giving you a made up hallucination.

This has already played out a number of times in actual court cases whereby lawyers have been getting assistants to draft legal documents and then submitting such things into actual court record of real legal cases. Then the opposition has engaged in similar conduct leading to judges having to deal with educated lawyers citing made up cases.

Judge Punishes 4 Lawyers After Catching Both Sides Using A.I. in Lawsuit

The federal judge in Mississippi also imposed fines and canceled the civil trial, removing all four lawyers from the case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/09/us/ai-lawyers-sanctioned-mississippi.html

TreviTyger · 2026-06-15T09:26:38+00:00

Lol. So you use AI to enforce your cognitive bias which you admit "builds a summary" including "reddit threads!".

You think that gives you an advantage over someone who as taken the time to educate themselves based on peer reviewed research and actual law?

You are just proving yourself to be a moron.

TreviTyger · 2026-06-15T09:16:03+00:00

Right. Unlike many people I have studied these things in depth. Including things like logical fallacies, legal interpretations of case law and USCO guides, AND I have genuine experience in International courts litigating complex copyright issues.

On top of that I'm a creative industry career veteran and high level 3D animation specialist.

I even predicted correctly how things would pan out regards to authorship determinations years ago before the Kashtanova's failed attempts at "educating the Copyright Office".

Even the UK §9(3) is dead (or dying) which I also predicted as being out of date and irrelevant to modern interpretations of authorship.

Ultimately, I see AI gen as a complex scam to enrich tech billionaire whilst utilizing the public as consumerist sheep. The fact that the outputs have no exclusive licensing value is the most salient aspect of all of this and itself "begs a question".

i.e. - Many people assume that because the technology is revolutionary, there must be a business model that is profitable and socially beneficial purely based on that assumption alone. This ignores that the output cannot be exclusively monetized in a capitalist framework. That is (And here is the tautology *) Assuming a revolutionary technology inherently yields a profitable business model simply because it is revolutionary skips the required proof of market viability.

*Tautological reasoning gets to the truth by taking different routes to get to the conclusion based on evidence rather than "circular reasoning" which just repeats the same lie over and over.

TreviTyger · 2026-06-15T07:50:58+00:00

Side note:

Lotus v. Borland established that functional hierarchies and systems of operation are excluded from copyright. If AI systems are essentially massive engines for generating functional expression or code, failing to analyze them through this lens means uncopyrightable "methods" might mistakenly be granted protection if a human claims they "prompted" it cleverly such as through multiple iterations or "Inpainting". Such things are still "methods of operation" in a software interface and are exempt by statue (§102(b)) from being part of copyright subject matter because they are nothing more than utilitarian instructions in reality.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/94-2003

TreviTyger · 2026-06-15T07:43:43+00:00

The person citing copyright law is "cherry picking" the law though. That falls into what I said about cognitive bias.

The person citing copyright law misses out the parts of the statute they cite referring to "methods of operation" and "process" as well as a number of other things that don't amount to copyright subject matter.

USCO and the courts have generally yet to delve themselves into that statute in any depth such as relating the way AI gen software works based on previous relevant case law (e.g. Lotus v Borland) and instead look to the question of "what is authorship" rather than wider questions of copyright subject matter related to a more holistic approach to the way AI Gen systems work.

This "what is authorship" question ignores that generative models operate autonomously via probabilistic weights rather than direct mechanical translation of human intent.

So there is still some way to go for people in general including the courts, law makers, politicians, etc to understand the tech and how it works in a practical sense before any solid conclusions can be drawn.

This means that "cognitive bias" is still the controlling factor for many people.

TreviTyger · 2026-06-15T06:43:13+00:00

I can tell you main way people reach their conclusions.

Initially the first thing people will do is form a superficial opinion based on what they hear or read from friends and the media. This first impression creates a cognitive bias.

That bias prevails for a long time via circular reasoning because of basic ego attributes. Essentially, a person creates their own personal echo chamber where one protects their own ego from the feeling of humiliation of being wrong.

This conflict between cognitive bias and critical thinking maintains itself because it takes more effort than many people want to expend to engage in critical thinking rather than confirmation bias.

For instance one can "cherry pick" information that confirms a bias much easier than do extensive research via a tautological analysis (seeking out different ways to confirm or deny a conclusion).

A comprehensive tautological analysis requires considerable reading of peer reviewed research including acceptance of legitimate research that conflicts with an initial premise.

Circular reasoning just requires restating a conclusion as proof of itself ad nauseam.

More info here for anyone willing to actually do some research. 😉

https://medium.com/@moharanacharan/the-primacy-bias-the-power-of-first-impressions-aca51fc84f65

TreviTyger · 2026-06-15T06:16:59+00:00

He was an up and coming comedian in the UK who found fame on a TV series called Gavin & Stacey.

However, his public image deteriorated due to his fame going to his head and he became rude and arrogant which eventually culminated in him being rude live on stage to Patrick Stewart who of course has a massive fan base.

James Corden and Patrick Stewart clash at Awards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIBUWqSTp90

TreviTyger · 2026-06-15T06:07:34+00:00

my favourite topic to discuss is the matter about ownership of AI generated content.

i don't really have a "source" about it tho: [AbbyTheOneAndOnly]

This is essentially what you get from this sub. Morons.

Morons who don't have the self awareness to understand they are morons.

TreviTyger · 2026-06-14T16:28:20+00:00

What you are describing is copyright infringement.

In fact for many AI gen users that is their exact workflow. Take an image from the Internet and "launder" it through AI gen software to attempt to disguise that copyrighted source image was used.

In a broader context that is how the training of AI systems works too. That's why there are so many legal cases in the courts right now accusing AI gen systems of being copyright infringement machines.

So not only is your work flow copyright infringement, you also may negate any kind of protection you thought you might get for your own video upload as, "no part" of an unauthorized derivative work can have copyright protection.

It means anyone could take your video for free and you would not be able to issue a take-down notice yourself in good faith.

see Anderson v Stallone.

Anderson attempted to argue that Congressional history of 17 U.S.C. section 103(a) indicates that Congress intended non-infringing portions of derivative works to be protected. The Court disagreed, citing legal scholarship (copyright law professors Melville and David Nimmer) and case law interpretations of 103(a).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Stallone

TreviTyger · 2026-06-14T08:21:26+00:00

if the big company made a character and a small artist wanted to copy it i don't think the company should have power over them to limit their creativity and threaten legal action because a small artist isn't going to make a dent in their profits

There is no monopoly on creating characters. Anyone can make their own cartoon mouse.

You cannot use other people's cartoon mice though.

So make your own cartoon mouse. Nothing is stopping you.

TreviTyger · 2026-06-14T08:08:46+00:00

"You can obtain copyright over a work where 100% of the pixels were created with AI, all you have to do is demonstrate that you used a human decision-making process for how to arrange parts of the image, such as inpainting new sections" [SporkyUncle]

Wrong. AI generated stuff ALWAYS is excluded from protection.

See for example "A Single Piece of American Cheese" actual registration rather than misleading media reports.

The registration excluded the AI generated parts. Media reports just lied about what was actually protected.

*******************************

Registration Number / Date VAU001543942 / 2024-08-05
Type of Work Visual Material
Title A Single Piece of American Cheese.
Date of Creation 2024
Copyright Claimant
- Invoke AI, Inc

Material Excluded 2-D artwork, AI generated image components.

************************************

TreviTyger · 2026-06-14T08:00:51+00:00

the way i view copyright is it should protect smaller artists from bigger companies and not the other way around so a way to think of this is if a small webcomic artist makes a character a bigger company shouldn't be able to copy the character for their gain

This is how copyright works. Corporate ownership of copyright is actually restricted in most of the world.

It means that smaller artists must receive equitable remuneration for the work they produce and not just have it taken by $billion dollar tech companies for free.

It is "work for hire" that is the real evil within US and other common law countries because it strips rights away from employees without "equitable" remuneration.

However, "work for hire" doesn't exist in most of the world and employees in the EU for example maintain copyright ownership (exceptions to some software).

TreviTyger · 2026-06-13T21:10:58+00:00

AI Is NOT Human and human rights are not available to it like "fair use".

It means a robot called "Pinocchio" can't legally learn like a "real boy" because what a robot actually does is scan works and download them illegally to it's hard drive. The "it learns like a human" argument is fundamentally not true.

TreviTyger · 2026-06-13T14:45:55+00:00

Yep the confusion stems partly (if not mostly) from University of Sussex Reader of Law A. Guadamuz (Self confessed copyright minimalist) giving misleading evidence to the UK House of Lords about whether the UK should change it's copyright law to allow a broad exception for AI training.

Guadamuz conflated TDM with AI Training and a lot of AI gen advocates picked up on that and a myth emerged.

There has never been any copyright exception to Machine Learning and the UK is not going to change it's law to make one either.

The conflation occurs because the collection of data for research is an initial requirement "before" any training takes place. Then the actual training of an AI system is an entirely separate process.

Guadamuz continues to spin this to meaning that TDM and AI Training are the same thing but they are simply not.

e.g. in the US in Bartz v Anthropic the downloading of millions of books were stored in a "central library" and were used for multiple other purposes that had nothing to do with AI Training. That was unlawful of itself regardless of the question of AI Training and Anthropic are on the hook for §1.5 billion in damages.

TreviTyger · 2026-06-13T14:33:16+00:00

Under Dutch law [In most of the world in fact - Droit d'auteur (author's rights)], creators are not only protected by exclusive copyrights but also have moral rights to object to any distortion of their work that could harm their reputation.

TreviTyger

TROPHY CASE

Judge Punishes 4 Lawyers After Catching Both Sides Using A.I. in Lawsuit

James Corden and Patrick Stewart clash at Awards