3 ms·

> The Copyright Office also accuses Thaler of making changes to his original claim that he had no involvement with the creation of the artwork. > The Office sa

> The Copyright Office also accuses Thaler of making changes to his original claim that he had no involvement with the creation of the artwork. > The Office says Thaler changed his story to claim that he “‘provided instructions and directed his AI to create the work,’ that ‘the AI is entirely controlled by Dr. Thaler,’ or that ‘the AI only operates at Dr. Thaler’s direction.’” To this legal layperson, it sounds like the claimant originally said the machine did everything without his involvement, prompting the Copyright Office to reject the work. And his subsequent claims of directing the AI would potentially change the decision—but that wouldn't apply to this claim but perhaps to future claims.

calgarymicro 4y ago
It seems like the Copyright Office's claim is a bit broader than that: > The Copyright Office says that its own guidelines specify human authorship as a requirement for protection and that “the Office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work.” I suppose the question is what degree of human involvement (specifying/refining prompts) would potentially qualify as a human 'creating' the work, if any. I don't think there's any case law on this yet.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- webmaven 4y ago
  > I suppose the question is what degree of human involvement (specifying/refining prompts) would potentially qualify as a human 'creating' the work, if any. I don't think there's any case law on this yet. A more interesting wrinkle might be a lawsuit challenging copyrights granted to works "authored" by a corporation, if it could be shown that no human employees (or contractors) were involved in a creative capacity. There are a few companies out there that generate content strictly algorithmically, and only use humans to rate, moderate, or curate that output (yes, the selection process results in copyrightable collections, but ought not to affect whether an individual selection is protectable).

calgarymicro 4y ago

It seems like the Copyright Office's claim is a bit broader than that: > The Copyright Office says that its own guidelines specify human authorship as a requirement for protection and that “the Office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work.” I suppose the question is what degree of human involvement (specifying/refining prompts) would potentially qualify as a human 'creating' the work, if any. I don't think there's any case law on this yet.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
webmaven 4y ago
> I suppose the question is what degree of human involvement (specifying/refining prompts) would potentially qualify as a human 'creating' the work, if any. I don't think there's any case law on this yet. A more interesting wrinkle might be a lawsuit challenging copyrights granted to works "authored" by a corporation, if it could be shown that no human employees (or contractors) were involved in a creative capacity. There are a few companies out there that generate content strictly algorithmically, and only use humans to rate, moderate, or curate that output (yes, the selection process results in copyrightable collections, but ought not to affect whether an individual selection is protectable).