The US Copyright Office has declared that generative AI art and text generated by prompts cannot be copyright protected.
https://www.theverge.com/news/602096/copyright-office-says-ai-prompting-doesnt-deserve-copyright-protection
https://www.theverge.com/news/602096/copyright-office-says-ai-prompting-doesnt-deserve-copyright-protection
Comments
I've been trying to look it up, but all I am getting is stuff relating to bluesky API.
You just type https://www.lostincult.co.uk as per the screenshot, aaand that's it.
i mean they could try but they wouldn't get far
Any loss for AI bros is a win for artists.
second reaction: wait, we haven't gained anything of value
third reaction: well, all the worst people are mad about it, so… neat!
The debate in regards to the threshold of co-creation for copywrite to apply will muddy the waters enough for some businesses to lock down AI usage until they get clarity. Not many but some
And Hollywood in general may hold fire on using AI to create new films that include dead actors, for example. This doesn't say anything about moral rights to your own likeness
But remember: in court testimony is evidence, and in civil cases the burden of proof is a preponderance.
So don’t ever do anything that can damage your credibility, and you should be okay.
Of course some folks think using GenAI is dishonest, so…. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Finally something I can stand behind
Not only is not creative work worthy of copyright, it would end up creating copyright trolls of mass proportions as anything that would trivialize the written word as they mass "created" works not to be read, but sued over.
It will kill music even worse than literature.
😳
end ID
This someone wanted the copyrights for the image, but since it wasn't a human that made the photo, it was denied
it's the "it wasn't a human that made it" part that resonates into this decision
(one lookup later)
Slater failed to gain copyright in 2014, PETA filed claim against Slater in 2015.
Especially, from PETA over a publicity stunt for them. If PETA had been serious they would have sued the USPTO.
Especially patents actually. Dumbest thing humanity has ever done to itself. Why would you lock knowledge up against eachother? For money? Another blight on society.
I’ll agree that we need to narrow the scope of them, for example the old “mini game during a video game loading screen” was stupid.
Which is like... Whatever, right? That's just a guy you made up. He lives in my head now and I've drawn him. Don't get mad about it.
end ID
The fact this ruling exists at all should be seen as a victory. If only a minute and largely inconsequential one.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receive-copyrights-us-court-says-2023-08-21/
However, it favors something that is "AI enhanced" by the artist. (Still kinda shitty, but the main crux is that it just fucking bodied the AI bros)
AI mice are keeping up perfectly well with AI mousetraps.
So like...what? Just scribble a moustache on?
🤷♂️
GOOD!
I can't think of a way to do what you want without abolishing copyright, period.
Also, this is why I say genAI is _not_ a disability aid! It is not ableist to point out that genAI is not copyrightable.
AI has uses sure. It can help at least with INSPIRATION, but it's definately NOT a disability tool. AI can't even count the r's in Strawberry.
I will savor this moment for DAYS.
So I’d wait for further guidance from USCO before declaring AI outputs public domain.
If you use AI to summarise a human-written book, I doubt you can copyright it