<story><title>AI-generated art lacks copyright protection, D.C. court says</title><url>https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ai-generated-art-lacks-copyright-protection-d-c-court-rules</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>space_fountain</author><text>The headline doesn’t seem to be what actually happened. The filer was arguing that the ai created the work on its own as a work for hire and thus the ai was the author with the computer scientist merely being the owner of the copyright as it was made for hire. I don’t think the argument that ai is a tool and the human operating it is the author was considered because the filer explicitly didn’t want to consider it.&lt;p&gt;In the review being appealed here (&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.copyright.gov&amp;#x2F;rulings-filings&amp;#x2F;review-board&amp;#x2F;docs&amp;#x2F;a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.copyright.gov&amp;#x2F;rulings-filings&amp;#x2F;review-board&amp;#x2F;docs&amp;#x2F;...&lt;/a&gt;). It makes it clear that the computer scientist doing the filing was trying to argue this was a work made for hire with the author being the computer. They wanted to argue that copyright can be assigned to non humans, but that just isn’t how the law works. The summary makes it clear early that it’s just taking their word that the work had no human input and was thus purely the creation of the computer. This seems to be a a better article &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.millernash.com&amp;#x2F;industry-news&amp;#x2F;paradise-denied-copyright-or-not-in-ai-generated-images&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.millernash.com&amp;#x2F;industry-news&amp;#x2F;paradise-denied-cop...&lt;/a&gt;.</text></comment>
<story><title>AI-generated art lacks copyright protection, D.C. court says</title><url>https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ai-generated-art-lacks-copyright-protection-d-c-court-rules</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>f33d5173</author><text>&amp;gt; Thaler’s motion for summary judgment, which Howell denied in the Friday order, argued that permitting AI to be listed as an author on copyrighted works would incentivize more creation, which is in line with copyright law’s purpose of promoting useful art for the public.&lt;p&gt;Lel.&lt;p&gt;Its wholly a semantic game. If you say &amp;quot;this machine created this artwork &lt;i&gt;wink&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;wink&lt;/i&gt;&amp;quot; the court will deny you because &amp;quot;machines can&amp;#x27;t have copyright&amp;quot;. If you say &amp;quot;I created this artwork, using aid from a computer program&amp;quot; they&amp;#x27;ll likely let you do just about anything.</text></comment>