There is also this filing [1] from February regarding the "human authorship" requirement. Thaler was requesting that he be granted the copyright to this work as the AI was "work-for-hire". The Copyright Office found that Thaler “provided no evidence on sufficient creative input or intervention by a human author in the
Work.”
So, at least in this instance, the AI created the work with insufficient creative input from a person, and thus has no human author, and is not eligible for copyright.
You are misreading it and it's easy to do so. This is the money quote:
"Thaler does not assert that the Work was created with contribution from a human author"
All it takes is for the copyright submission for this Artist to say "I used a computer to generate this image through x y z steps selecting for q r s features until I was satisfied." I'm confident they would accept it.
This case is an attempt to set new precedent for copyright by granting it to a computer. And rightfully so, the Copyright office refuses to do so.
Go read Title 17 of the United States Code. AI would be considered an anonymous author. You can't claim title to another authors anonymous work. If you claim I can own copyright for works created using my software algorithms, you would then be claiming that Adobe owns the works to all works created within their tools as long as those works did not have copyright claims made by the original author, which obviously Adobe doesn't own.
Well, I'm fairly certain one can claim ownership of works they create via algorithms, as the entire digital media space wouldn't exist. I don't think authoring or hosting an algorithm gives one carte blanche ownership over things other people create with that algorithm, but cynically I could see that happening if enough money is involved unfortunately, but hopefully not. It's not clear at all why AI would ever be considered the author and in fact all the sources I've found assert the opposite, that AI cannot be considered an author. So I still haven't seen anything preventing people from claiming copyright protections on works they create via AI.
Comments
Is there any source for this? The only things I can find are people trying to assert non humans as copyright holders and being told no.
There is also this filing [1] from February regarding the "human authorship" requirement. Thaler was requesting that he be granted the copyright to this work as the AI was "work-for-hire". The Copyright Office found that Thaler “provided no evidence on sufficient creative input or intervention by a human author in the Work.”
So, at least in this instance, the AI created the work with insufficient creative input from a person, and thus has no human author, and is not eligible for copyright.
https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/...
You are misreading it and it's easy to do so. This is the money quote:
"Thaler does not assert that the Work was created with contribution from a human author"
All it takes is for the copyright submission for this Artist to say "I used a computer to generate this image through x y z steps selecting for q r s features until I was satisfied." I'm confident they would accept it.
This case is an attempt to set new precedent for copyright by granting it to a computer. And rightfully so, the Copyright office refuses to do so.
Go read Title 17 of the United States Code. AI would be considered an anonymous author. You can't claim title to another authors anonymous work. If you claim I can own copyright for works created using my software algorithms, you would then be claiming that Adobe owns the works to all works created within their tools as long as those works did not have copyright claims made by the original author, which obviously Adobe doesn't own.
Well, I'm fairly certain one can claim ownership of works they create via algorithms, as the entire digital media space wouldn't exist. I don't think authoring or hosting an algorithm gives one carte blanche ownership over things other people create with that algorithm, but cynically I could see that happening if enough money is involved unfortunately, but hopefully not. It's not clear at all why AI would ever be considered the author and in fact all the sources I've found assert the opposite, that AI cannot be considered an author. So I still haven't seen anything preventing people from claiming copyright protections on works they create via AI.