Is there any source for this? The only things I can find are people trying to assert non humans as copyright holders and being told no.
Is there any source for this? The only things I can find are people trying to assert non humans as copyright holders and being told no.
So, at least in this instance, the AI created the work with insufficient creative input from a person, and thus has no human author, and is not eligible for copyright.
https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/...
"Thaler does not assert that the Work was created with contribution from a human author"
All it takes is for the copyright submission for this Artist to say "I used a computer to generate this image through x y z steps selecting for q r s features until I was satisfied." I'm confident they would accept it.
This case is an attempt to set new precedent for copyright by granting it to a computer. And rightfully so, the Copyright office refuses to do so.