3 ms·

Not sure why this should be true; the US Supreme Court recently chose to let precedent stand that AI creations are not copyrightable. https://www.reuters.com/le

• nradov 8mo ago
  You're really missing the point in multiple ways. First, precedents on copyright law are irrelevant to patent law. Second, AI generated works generally can be copyrighted under the human creator's name.
  • reverius42 8mo ago
    No, I think you are quite incorrect, at least on the latter point: "Lower courts upheld a U.S. Copyright Office decision that the AI-crafted visual art at issue in the case was ineligible for copyright protection because it did not have a human creator." Not eligible for copyright protection does not mean it can be copyrighted "under the human creator's name". It means there is no creative work at all. No copyright.
    • reverius42 8mo ago
      And while courts in theory aren't supposed to apply copyright precedent to patent cases, in practice, they apparently do a lot of the time, so it's kind of a mess! https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/ckjip/vol16/iss1/4/#:~:text=Abstract,or%20inconsistent%20with%20other%20doctrine. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/ckjip/vol16/iss1/4/#:~:t...
    • nradov 8mo ago
      No, you're still missing the point. Did you even read the court's opinion?
      • reverius42 8mo ago
        No, just news articles. Perhaps the news media have misrepresented the outcome here.