>The court further reiterated that the human authorship requirement does not “impede the protection of works made with artificial intelligence”, as the USCO has

>The court further reiterated that the human authorship requirement does not “impede the protection of works made with artificial intelligence”, as the USCO has previously permitted the registration of works “made by human authors who use artificial intelligence”. It continued that “line-drawing disagreements” over the extent to which artificial intelligence contributed to a human author’s work are “neither here nor there”, as Thaler had listed the Creativity Machine as the sole author. It sounds like in this case the the guy claimed the AI was the sole author, and that's why there's no copyright. But if a human is using AI as a tool, then there can be copyright.