“Human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.”

AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, rules a US Federal Judge::United States District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell found that AI-generated artwork can’t be copyrighted, putting to rest a lawsuit against the US Copyright Office over its refusal to copyright an AI-generated image.

  • olsonexi@lemmy.blueEnglish
    61·
    1 year ago

    Howell wrote that copyright has never been granted to work that was “absent any guiding human hand,”

    Plaintiff develops and owns computer programs he describes as having “artificial intelligence” (“AI”) capable of generating original pieces of visual art, akin to the output of a human artist.

    If he developed the program, that sure sounds like a “guiding human hand” to me. I think his real mistake was trying to claim it as a work for hire with the AI as the author, rather than it just being a tool.

    • Hildegarde@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      1 year ago

      Copyright protects creative expression. Inventions are covered by patents. The guiding human hand would need to file with the patent office rather than the copyright office to protect their art algorithm.

      When the copyright office sees the output of the art algorithm, they see an image that is not copyrightable due to a lack of human expression, a prompt that is uncopyrightable due to it being a factual list of things the image should contain, and an AI that is not even governed by their laws.

      The ruling is unsurprising.

      • olsonexi@lemmy.blueEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Yes, the protection of the software and the images it creates are separate, but that’s missing the point. What protections the software does or doesn’t have are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the images are covered. By developing the software, he determines how it functions, which influences the final product that it outputs. That would still be the case even if the software weren’t covered by IP of any kind at all.

    • EmptySlime@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      I’m pretty sure that he wanted to go this route so he could have automatic copyright ownership of literally anything people using his AI generator prompted from it. There’s already ways that artists can take AI output and pretty easily make it something that can get copyright protection. It really seems like he was just angling to own by default anything that is generated using his AI.

      • nous@programming.devEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I think that was his intent. And I am glad it got shot down as that would have created a very dangerous precedent. Could adobe claim copyright on your work for being the ones that wrote photoshop? Or kodak for creating the film you used or Canon for creating the camera?