Comment on A New York Times copyright lawsuit could kill OpenAI

• Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  This ruling is about something else entirely. He tried to argue that the AI itself was the author and that copyright should pass to him as he hired it.

  An excerpt from your article:

  In 2018, Dr. Thaler sought to register “Recent Entrance” with the U.S. Copyright Office, listing the Creativity Machine as its author. He claimed that ownership had been transferred to him under the work-for-hire doctrine, which allows the employer of the creator of a given work or the commissioner of the work to be considered its legal author. However, in 2019, the Copyright Office denied copyright registration for “Recent Entrance,” ruling that the work lacked the requisite human authorship. Dr. Thaler requested a review of his application, but the Copyright Office once more refused registration, restating the requirement that a human have created the work.

  Copyright is afforded to humans, you can’t register an AI as an author, the same as you can’t register a monkey can’t hold copyright.

  source

  • tonytins@pawb.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Yes. I know. That’s I’ve been saying this whole time.

    source

    • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Then you should ammend your comment to:

      even though the courts have ruled that anything atributed to an AI outputs as an author is actually in the public domain.

      source

      • tonytins@pawb.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        You must be a blast at parties.

        source