Technology

60182 readers

4604 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

1388

AI-Created Art Isn’t Copyrightable, Judge Says In Ruling That Could Give Hollywood Studios Pause (www.hollywoodreporter.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by ugjka to c/technology

217 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Talk about an inaccurate headline. The conclusion here isn't that AI art can't be copyrighted, it's that AI cannot be a copyright holder. But it's AI, so we can't actually expect anyone to pull their head out of their ass and give it enough thought to write an article that isn't garbage.

Instead we have yet another thread about this case in which no one actually has any idea what the ruling was. Very informative.

[–] Pipoca 10 points 1 year ago

From the opinion;

Both parties have now moved for summary judgment, which motions present the sole issue of whether a work generated entirely by an artificial system absent human involvement should be eligible for copyright. See Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. (Pl.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 16; Defs.’ Cross-Mot. Summ. J. (“Defs.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 17. For the reasons explained below, defendants are correct that human authorship is an essential part of a valid copyright claim, and therefore plaintiff’s pending motion for summary judgment is denied and defendants’ pending cross-motion for summary judgment is granted.

AI being the copyright holder was never even in question. Some guy tried to register AI art in his company's name, using the AI as the author of a work for hire. The Court found that he couldn't get the copyright as a work for hire since no copyright existed in the first place.

[–] Cybersteel 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What if a monkey made art, would that be copyrightable?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

No. That is in the article.

In another case, the a federal appeals court said that a photo captured by a monkey can’t be granted a copyright since animals don’t qualify for protection, though the suit was decided on other grounds. Howell cited the ruling in her decision. “Plaintiff can point to no case in which a court has recognized copyright in a work originating with a non-human,” the order, which granted summary judgment in favor of the copyright office, stated.