The US Copyright Office offers creative workers a powerful labor protective.

  • FaceDeer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It took me a couple of clicks to discover that, as I suspected, this article is about the Stephen Thaler case. Thaler was trying to argue that the AI itself should hold the copyright for the images it generates.

    This is both a ludicrous argument and irrelevant to the overall issue of whether AI-generated art is copyrightable. AIs are not legal persons, and only legal persons can hold copyright over someting. The result of this lawsuit is straightforward and expected.

    • nous@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thaler was trying to argue that the AI itself should hold the copyright for the images it generates.

      Was he going that far? As far as I understand it, he was trying to claim that the AI was the author of the work and that he should hold the copyright under the work for hire clauses/being the owner of the AI.

      Plaintiff Stephen Thaler owns a computer system he calls the “Creativity Machine,” which he claims generated a piece of visual art of its own accord. He sought to register the work for a copyright, listing the computer system as the author and explaining that the copyright should transfer to him as the owner of the machine.

      https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Thaler_v._Perlmutter,_Memorandum_Opinion_(Dkt._24)

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Calling the machine the “author” is what I was describing in different words. He’s saying “I didn’t make this, the machine made this.” The court’s saying “well, the machine can’t hold copyright, so if you’re saying you didn’t make this then there’s no one who holds copyright. With no one holding copyright, that makes it public domain.”