Computer scientist Stephen Thaler again told his ‘Creativity Machine’ can’t earn a ©
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.
MyOpinion@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
Excellent don’t encourage this slop.
obinice@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
AI authors - not the human users - the AI themselves, Mister Anderson.