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.
Comments
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.