But if you can't copyright something that was created via automation (https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2022/02/23/thaler-loses-ai-author...), does this even matter?
Which makes a lot of sense to me - Someone had to set up the automation with the intent to create a copy writable work, and copywrite often has built in expirations based on a window of time after the death of the author. Hard to make that sane if you're listing a computer program as the author - when does it die?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications%2C_Inc.%2C_....
People keep throwing that article around, and there seems to be a profound misunderstanding about what was determined there - automation is fine. Listing a machine as the author is not.
In contrast, a musical melody is created by a finite set, and is bracketed by a duration. You can't keep adding more notes to a composition without extending its duration. Doing so makes it non melodic. If you do it enough, it becomes noise (white noise, pink noise..)
But imagine I build something that spits out as many binary sequences as possible. Do I then have a copyright to all the "works" that can be interpreted from it in various data formats I may have accidentally met?
This question is about intention, not authorship.
"Thaler listed Creativity Machine as the author of the work"
You cannot claim that the AI was the creator.
The court is saying “the [typewriter] didn’t write the book, you wrote the book using a [typewriter]”
Replace [typewriter] with any technology.