AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, rules a US Federal Judge
theverge.com
theverge.com
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37188791 (167 points | 22 hours ago | 112 comments)
Tech law journalism is a telephone game that usually distorts what was actually said. People then form strong opinions on the headlines. Chaos ensues.
Example: “AI art cannot be copyrighted - US Federal Judge”
That’s not what the judge decided. The decision said you can’t assign a copyright to an AI. This doesn’t mean the thing you create with AI can’t be copyrighted. You write a prompt, press a button, cause something to be created, etc., and you’re the author not the AI.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23919666-thalervperl...
From @AndrewMayne on Twitter
Else what prevents you from saying that Photoshop with all it bazilion function isn't an AI and therefor you can't copyright it.
Copyright (and patent) durations differ per jurisdiction, but they often go beyond the lifetime of the author. Which seems silly.
Not being able to slap a copyright on AI generated content may or may not make sense. Someone wrote the prompt which may be subject to copyright, though I guess it could be considered to be a recipe, and recipes after often not subject to copyright.
As has always been true, automated or animal works absent human involvement cannot be copyrighted. The requirement for human involvement is a very low bar, and the copyright office and judges only reject copyrights from people pressing test cases where they explicitly disclaim human involvement in the work.
There is no threat to Hollywood or anyone who uses AI in their own creative workflow, only to people who simply turn on a machine and intentionally blindly claim copyright on its output.
And yes, as a programmer I think the same thing about AIs and programmers.
My hope is that if anything we get is paying the people to do the same thing for the billionth time.