AI-Created Art Denied Copyright Protection

[CdnFox]

https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/21/ai_copyright_lawsuit_lost/

 

Judge snuffs man's quest to have AI-created art protected by copyright

"The office will not register works 'produced by a machine or mere mechanical process' that operates 'without any creative input or intervention from a human author' because, under the statute, 'a work must be created by a human being'," the review board told Thaler's lawyer after his second attempt was rejected last year.

But handing down her ruling on Friday, Judge Beryl Howell wouldn't budge, pointing out that "human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright" and "United States copyright law protects only works of human creation."

"Non-human actors need no incentivization with the promise of exclusive rights under United States law, and copyright was therefore not designed to reach them," she wrote.

 

 

Very interesting - i'm sure canada's courts will follow suit.  This has serious implications for limiting the use of AI.

[Moonlight Graham]

This could save humanity

[CdnFox]

Heh - well joking aside i think there's an element of truth to that. I think it'll help protect the value of a human's creativity.

It'll be interesting over time to see how much 'human' there needs to be for a work to be considered 'human created'.  If a human uses ai to help create a story or painting, how much use will cause it to be deemed an ai creation?

[Nationalist]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/21/ai_copyright_lawsuit_lost/

 

Judge snuffs man's quest to have AI-created art protected by copyright

"The office will not register works 'produced by a machine or mere mechanical process' that operates 'without any creative input or intervention from a human author' because, under the statute, 'a work must be created by a human being'," the review board told Thaler's lawyer after his second attempt was rejected last year.

But handing down her ruling on Friday, Judge Beryl Howell wouldn't budge, pointing out that "human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright" and "United States copyright law protects only works of human creation."

"Non-human actors need no incentivization with the promise of exclusive rights under United States law, and copyright was therefore not designed to reach them," she wrote.

 

 

Very interesting - i'm sure canada's courts will follow suit.  This has serious implications for limiting the use of AI.

GOOD!

[impartialobserver]

Interesting.