257
That's good news, in my opinion. If they're allowed to just completely disregard copyright when training, then I should be able to completely disregard any attempted copyright on the output too.
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
257 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
67151 readers
3627 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
He's not trying to get copyright for something he generated, he's trying to have the court award copyright to his AI system "DABUS", but copyright is for humans. Humans using Gen AI are eligible for copyright according to the latest guidance by the United States Copyright Office.
From United States Copyright Office ...
Based on an analysis of copyright law and policy, informed by the many thoughtful comments in response to our NOI, the Office makes the following conclusions and recommendations:
• Questions of copyrightability and AI can be resolved pursuant to existing law, without the need for legislative change.
• The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output.
• Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author, even if the work also includes AI-generated material.
• Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.
• Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
• Based on the functioning of current generally available technology, prompts do not alone provide sufficient control.
• Human authors are entitled to copyright in their works of authorship that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs, as well as the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs, or creative modifications of the outputs.
• The case has not been made for additional copyright or sui generis protection for AI- generated content.
The Office will continue to monitor technological and legal developments to determine whether any of these conclusions should be revisited. It will also provide ongoing assistance to the public, including through additional registration guidance and an update to the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices.
Why does Thaler want to assign copyright to a non-human so badly, when he could simply take the credit himself?
We can see he made references to the fact that Corporations are considered people (fucking citizens united) in his arguments to the court.
Could someone perhaps use the result of the failed cases in an attempt to get citizens united overturned, based on any precedent set through Thaler’s appeals (assuming they all fail)? Maybe that’s too hopeful of a take?
Why does Thaler want to assign copyright to a non-human so badly, when he could simply take the credit himself?
Article tag line: "Stephen Thaler’s series of high-profile copyright cases has made headlines worldwide. He’s done it to demonstrate his AI is capable of independent thought."
imo, 10 bucks says Thaler is doing this so he can sell his AI construct as "you can copyright DABUS's output".
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.
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.
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. :)
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.