this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
28 points (96.7% liked)

Futurology

1654 readers
72 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lugh@futurology.today 5 points 1 year ago

The cynic in me says as this is America and all the big corporations have the politicians in their pockets they'll "fix" this with new legislation in no time at all.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

This is a clickbait article based off of a different clickbait article. The actual legal issue is the old Thaler v. Perlmutter case where Thaler argued that an AI was the "author" of a work and therefore the AI should hold copyright over it. The court basically responded "AIs aren't legal persons and only legal persons can hold copyright. You dolt. And since you insist that you're not the author, that means you're arguing that this work has no author. That means public domain. Next case!"

That was a while ago. Thaler appealed, and the judge just said "no, really."

This doesn't really mean much as far as the general copyrightability of AI-generated art goes. It just means that the AIs themselves can't hold copyright, which I think pretty much anyone could have predicted from the start.

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

hahahahahahaHAHAHAAAAA