this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
631 points (95.3% liked)

Technology

59429 readers
2693 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 another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
631
Everything Made By an AI Is In the Public Domain (doctorow.medium.com)
submitted 1 year ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
137 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The US Copyright Office offers creative workers a powerful labor protective.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 47 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It took me a couple of clicks to discover that, as I suspected, this article is about the Stephen Thaler case. Thaler was trying to argue that the AI itself should hold the copyright for the images it generates.

This is both a ludicrous argument and irrelevant to the overall issue of whether AI-generated art is copyrightable. AIs are not legal persons, and only legal persons can hold copyright over someting. The result of this lawsuit is straightforward and expected.

[–] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Just as corporations weren't legal persons until about 13 years ago.

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

it's in the name though

[–] nous@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thaler was trying to argue that the AI itself should hold the copyright for the images it generates.

Was he going that far? As far as I understand it, he was trying to claim that the AI was the author of the work and that he should hold the copyright under the work for hire clauses/being the owner of the AI.

Plaintiff Stephen Thaler owns a computer system he calls the “Creativity Machine,” which he claims generated a piece of visual art of its own accord. He sought to register the work for a copyright, listing the computer system as the author and explaining that the copyright should transfer to him as the owner of the machine.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Thaler_v._Perlmutter,_Memorandum_Opinion_(Dkt._24)

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Calling the machine the "author" is what I was describing in different words. He's saying "I didn't make this, the machine made this." The court's saying "well, the machine can't hold copyright, so if you're saying you didn't make this then there's no one who holds copyright. With no one holding copyright, that makes it public domain."