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

• 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

      • hperrin@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        It doesn’t matter what he argued. What matters is the judge’s decision, and that was about whether AI generated material is copyrightable in the first place. The judge agreed on a summary judgement based on the Copyright Office’s claims, not the defendants claims. That is legal precedent.

        source

        • -> View More Comments