2 ms·
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 iss
by 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 agoAnd 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 agoNo, you're still missing the point. Did you even read the court's opinion?
- reverius42 8mo agoNo, just news articles. Perhaps the news media have misrepresented the outcome here.