US appeals court says AI authors don't qualify for copyright.

Comments

• MyOpinion@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Excellent don’t encourage this slop.

  source

  • obinice@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    AI authors - not the human users - the AI themselves, Mister Anderson.

    source
• bassomitron@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Before anyone gets excited:

  The Court of Appeals did, however, acknowledge that works made by a person with the assistance of AI can qualify for copyright, while also noting that no legal standard defines the amount of human participation necessary for such recognition.

  I think the primary motivation for this guy to doggedly pursue this case, is so he could claim ownership over anything this/future model(s) produced, regardless of his involvement. It would’ve set a bad precedent in a lot of ways.

  Anyway, people/corpos can still click a button to generate shit and claim copyright since the court acknowledges that any miniscule amount of human involvement qualifies.

  source

  • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Thomas Kinkade did this with art prints in the 90s and 00s. Mass print them and then have ‘trained artists’ go in and add a little highlighting, and charge a premium for it.

    Behind the Bastards has a good 2 part episode on him.

    source

    • deranger@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Was Kinkade misrepresenting the production process or something? If not- who cares? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Yup.

      Kinkade was a no-talent ass clown, like the people who use AI to produce works of “art”.

      source
• roofuskit@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Humans only, well established. Sad these people as are so willing to throw money at lawyers for cases they can’t win

  source
• gimmelemmy@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  So, if i rip off an AI author, I will only owe royalties to the author the AI ripped off?

  source