Technology

67242 readers

3490 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

257

US appeals court rejects copyrights for AI-generated art lacking 'human' creator (www.reuters.com)

submitted 5 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Why would you give a machine money?

To be clear, you'd give the company that owns the machine money.

Just use the generation tools yourself and then you have the copyright.

Except that it sounds like no, you wouldn't by this court case, right?

it’s just worthless AI slop.

I agree. :)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days 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.