Hacker News Reader

No, according to everything I've read before, the parent post was correct and you're not. This article clearly says "art generated by artificial intelligence without human input cannot be copyrighted under U.S. law":

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-appeals-court-rejects-co...

View on HN

Reading the linked Court of Appeals document in that post, the question is posted in the opening: "Can a non-human machine be an author under the Copyright Act of 1976?", which it then answers as no. It doesn't mention elsewhere that i can see that this means the output of the tool itself is not copyrightable. I would not trust the Reuters interpretation without a direct reference to a court document.

Could the prompt used to generate the art be considered human input, or is it that a human must to make some contribution to the art for it to be copyrightable?

The prompt itself is copyrightable but not the art/code generated from it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com