5 ms·
My understanding is the ruling actually says the copyright cannot be granted to the AI. But that might not mean a human cannot claim copyright for AI art. Ass
by swid 3y ago
My understanding is the ruling actually says the copyright cannot be granted to the AI. But that might not mean a human cannot claim copyright for AI art.
Assuming the AI has a vast number of outputs, many which are uninteresting; a human can select a few outputs as being worthy of being called art or suitable for their purposes.
So an AI can create an image, but the process of selection constitutes an editorial process, and a person can the claim copyright for images they generate and choose to distribute.
This seems to be somewhat similar to copyrighting a found object as art, or taking a photo of a building and owning the copyright to that. It would not make sense to give the copyright to the camera, which is what this ruling confirms.
- Detrytus 3y agoThe reasoning in the ruling is a bit different: copyright was invented to give humans a financial incentive to create art. Machines need no incentive, so they do not need copyright :) So, if the basic distinction here is: - if AI can create something all by itself, then it is not copyrightable (due to "machines need no incentive" rule) - if AI still needs human help, then it is just a tool (like a brush, or computer with Photoshop installed), and the human is the real author. It's not just about an "editorial process" - book editors do not have any copyright even after they fix hundreds of typos and grammar mistakes of the original author. Also, the plaintiff is making contradictory claims: when applying for copyright he said that AI was fully autonomous, but then, in the lawsuit he tries to change his story and say that his role in creating the piece of art was crucial. Probably just desperately fighting to make any money from this.
- sacado2 3y agoEditors do not own the copyright on the work they edited (unless the author explicitely licensed it, of course.)
- swid 3y agoI guess I used the term inappropriately since the other commenter picked up on it as well, but I did compare it to deciding what to take a picture of as opposed to editing something written. There is some decision making and we don’t award the copyright to the architect or camera, but the photographer.