simple@lemm.ee to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 months agoUS appeals court rejects copyrights for AI-generated art lacking 'human' creatorwww.reuters.comexternal-linkmessage-square8fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10 cross-posted to: news@lemmy.world
arrow-up11arrow-down1external-linkUS appeals court rejects copyrights for AI-generated art lacking 'human' creatorwww.reuters.comsimple@lemm.ee to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 months agomessage-square8fedilink cross-posted to: news@lemmy.world
minus-squareBeej Jorgensen@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·2 months agoTricky case. You can pay someone to make a custom work you hold the copyright on. But you can’t pay for a machine to do it if you want the copyright.
minus-squarexthexder@l.sw0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·2 months agoYou can buy a license to use the work from the original author. Why would you give a machine money? Just use the generation tools yourself and then you have the copyright. If there was no human input then it’s just worthless AI slop.
minus-squareBeej Jorgensen@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·edit-22 months ago Why would you give a machine money? To be clear, you’d give the company that owns the machine money. Just use the generation tools yourself and then you have the copyright. Except that it sounds like no, you wouldn’t by this court case, right? it’s just worthless AI slop. I agree. :)
Tricky case. You can pay someone to make a custom work you hold the copyright on. But you can’t pay for a machine to do it if you want the copyright.
You can buy a license to use the work from the original author.
Why would you give a machine money? Just use the generation tools yourself and then you have the copyright. If there was no human input then it’s just worthless AI slop.
To be clear, you’d give the company that owns the machine money.
Except that it sounds like no, you wouldn’t by this court case, right?
I agree. :)