Comment on US appeals court rejects copyrights for AI-generated art lacking 'human' creator
beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
Tricky case. You can pay someone to make a custom work you hold the copyright on. But you can’t pay for a machine to do it if you want the copyright.
xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 weeks ago
You can buy a license to use the work from the original author.
Why would you give a machine money? Just use the generation tools yourself and then you have the copyright. If there was no human input then it’s just worthless AI slop.
beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 weeks ago
If that company has people curating the results, then they have a reason to exist and they would have a valid copyright. If the company is just feeding customer prompts into an AI, then there’s no copyright, but also no value added vs just using stable diffusion or a hosted service yourself.
I just think any AI image that can’t be copyrighted wouldn’t be worth buying a license for anyway, since that implies no human was involved in creating it.