Technology

58033 readers

3690 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

493

AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, rules a US Federal Judge (www.theverge.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

62 comments fedilink hide all child comments

AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, rules a US Federal Judge::United States District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell found that AI-generated artwork can’t be copyrighted, putting to rest a lawsuit against the US Copyright Office over its refusal to copyright an AI-generated image.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] legostepper@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (20 children)

Just thinking out loud: how would this impact AI-generated videos, or stuff like AI-generated actors and AI-written scripts? Does this suggest that stuff made by AI would, by default, belong to the public domain? If true, that could do quite a bit in forcing the movie studios to get off their asses and bring them back to the negotiating table with the actors and writers.

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 year ago (7 children)

The ruling says the AI itself can't hold a copyright, but humans using them can still be copyright holders of any qualifying works.

[–] legostepper@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding something here, then: Doesn’t the ruling here state that the human using the AI tried to apply for a copyright listing himself as the copyright holder and the AI as the author that worked on a commission for him, which is what was denied? Or are you saying that the reason it was denied is because he listed the AI as the author?

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Here's the relevant part from a different article:

Thaler, who listed himself as the owner of the copyright under the work-for-hire doctrine, sued in a lawsuit contesting the denial and the office’s human authorship requirement. He argued that AI should be acknowledged “as an author where it otherwise meets authorship criteria,” with any ownership vesting in the machine’s owner. His complaint argued that the office’s refusal was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with the law” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which provides for judicial review of agency actions. The question presented in the suit was whether a work generated solely by a computer falls under the protection of copyright law.

[–] legostepper@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Got it, thanks!

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (17 replies)