this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
222 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

66783 readers
5079 users here now

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

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
222
US appeals court says AI authors don't qualify for copyright. (go.theregister.com)
submitted 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Computer scientist Stephen Thaler again told his 'Creativity Machine' can't earn a ©

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 54 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

This guy's court cases are widely misunderstood by the general public.

In a nutshell: he's a crank who is trying to tell the court "I don't hold a copyright to the thing my AI produced, my AI holds the copyright."

And the court tells him: "Only people (or legal persons, like corporations) can hold a copyright. Your AI cannot. If you say that you yourself don't either, we can't force you to have a copyright on it. So I guess that thing has no copyright and is therefore in the public domain."

And then everyone gasps and exclaims "the court just ruled that AI-generated things are in the public domain!"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 minutes ago

Well, AI-generated things are in the public domain since as you said, they can't be copyrighted, LegalEagle on youtube actually brought this up, but it was in regards to NFTs and how those were almost all AI generated therefore you can't buy it's copyright and own it.

He also talked about a case of a famous picture where a monkey (or whatever a primate) took a picture with a photographers camera and then he wanted to sue for copyright infringement and it was tossed because the monkey was the author and only humans can have copyright.