3 ms·
I don't think Fontana's reasoning holds up. I think it is more like photography. The case law is that a camera can't own a copyright, but a human can, even th
by RcouF1uZ4gsC 7mo ago
I don't think Fontana's reasoning holds up.
I think it is more like photography.
The case law is that a camera can't own a copyright, but a human can, even though all the pixels were produced by the camera with very little involvement at the pixel level by the human.
- waterTanuki 7mo agoA camera doesn't use unlicensed IP from other sources to produce an image. The makers of the camera explicitly gave you a right to own the photograph taken with the parts used to assemble the camera.
- ryukoposting 7mo agoActually yes, Fontana's reasoning does hold up, and the USSC seems to agree: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-declines-hear-dispute-over-copyrights-ai-generated-material-2026-03-02/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-de... Prompting generally does not constitute authorship under US law.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7mo agoThat was not what the USSC case was about. It was about assigning copyright to an AI instead of a human.