5 ms·
Did you read the article? It's actually apparent that you didn't even read the first paragraph. >>The US Copyright Office has once again denied an effort to co
by robbedpeter 5y ago
Did you read the article? It's actually apparent that you didn't even read the first paragraph.
>>The US Copyright Office has once again denied an effort to copyright a work of art that was created by an artificial intelligence system. Dr. Stephen Thaler attempted to copyright a piece of art titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, claiming in a second request for reconsideration of a 2019 ruling that the USCO's “human authorship” requirement was unconstitutional.
Dr. Thaler tried to copyright a work under his name, and they ruled that generative software produced images can't be copyrighted. They fundamentally misunderstood what the software does.
- yorwba 5y agoYou may have read the article, but you failed to understand it. > Thaler applied to register the work as "as a work-for-hire to the owner of the Creativity Machine.” That's his shtick. He disclaims any involvement in the creation of the work, other than "hiring" the AI to create it for him, and then pretends to be offended when people draw the conclusion that he doesn't own the work because (according to him) it wasn't created by a human.
- robbedpeter 5y agoAhh, it's highly misleading. It's more akin to using photoshop and trying to assign copyright to the software, which is silly. Thanks for the clarification!
- opo 5y agoJust a friendly note - both you, and the person you are responding too, are breaking the guidelines of this site: >Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html