3 ms·
> Thaler’s motion for summary judgment, which Howell denied in the Friday order, argued that permitting AI to be listed as an author on copyrighted works would
by f33d5173 3y ago
> Thaler’s motion for summary judgment, which Howell denied in the Friday order, argued that permitting AI to be listed as an author on copyrighted works would incentivize more creation, which is in line with copyright law’s purpose of promoting useful art for the public.
Lel.
Its wholly a semantic game. If you say "this machine created this artwork wink wink" the court will deny you because "machines can't have copyright". If you say "I created this artwork, using aid from a computer program" they'll likely let you do just about anything.
- Nevermark 3y agoYes, perception is going to rule in these cases. So semantics matter. Strategic disclosure of methods will matter. And your copyrights will be even more secure if you have an army of lawyers to say you “created this artwork”. These are all highly subjective dials. I think these early cases are going to get buried in cases with increasing complexity. We don’t really know how this will fall out.