simple@lemm.ee to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 16 days 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 · 16 days agomessage-square8fedilink cross-posted to: news@lemmy.world
minus-squareBeej Jorgensen@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·16 days 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-up0·16 days 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-215 days 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. :)