Comment

Comment on Templates of Cleo (my OC) holding a flag. (view body for more)

Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

You’re spreading misinformation. There hasn’t been any ruling or precedent. The copyright office issued guidance, which reflects only the office’s interpretation based on its experience. It isn’t binding in the courts and guidance from the office is not a substitute for legal advice, nor it does not create any rights or obligations for anyone. They are the lowest rung on the ladder for deciding what law means.

More importantly, the copyright office has been hosting public listening sessions asking for public comments for some time now in an effort to evolve their understanding of the subject.

Here is a link to the actual guidance and an open letter by artists if you care to read it.

source

Sort:hotnew top

hperrin@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
There has been a ruling issued by a judge:

www.nytimes.com/2023/…/copyright-ai-artwork.html

source
- Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  Read that again.
  
  The case was unique because an inventor named Stephen Thaler listed his computer system as the artwork’s creator, arguing that a copyright should be issued and transferred to him as the machine’s owner. After the U.S. Copyright Office repeatedly rejected his request, Thaler sued the agency’s director.
  
  He tried to get copyright for a computer as the author. Copyright is something only humans can hold. This is something entirely different.
  
  source
  - hperrin@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    Read the actual decision:
    
    Image
    
    The decision was that the work was not copyrightable because it was made without human involvement.
    
    source
    Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    The ruling in Thaler v. Perlmutter is about something else entirely. He tried to argue that the AI itself was the author and that copyright should pass to him as he hired it.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments