> The practical implication is you can't copyright something that your AI generated. No, its not. This is not a case of the human trying to claim copyright as

> The practical implication is you can't copyright something that your AI generated. No, its not. This is not a case of the human trying to claim copyright as the author of a work made using AI tools. > As the article notes, copyright applications are also being rejected in cases where a human asserts authorship over an AI generated work. That is true (although at least one has been accepted by the copyright office, IIRC), but it is not an outcome of this case (even in the sense that this ruling might support it) because this case does not concern human claims of authorship at all. It concerns undisputed solely-AI creation.