The U.S. Copyright Office is holding firm that AI-generated artwork is ineligible for copyright.
https://www.cbr.com/ai-comic-deemed-ineligible-copyright-protection/
#ai #aiArt #aiArtCommunity #aiArtwork #comics #media #art #artwork #artistsOfMastodon #indieArtists #artistsOnMastodon #comicArt #comicArtists #copyright
@cliffjones The issue of human authorship is interesting. In a hypothetical case, if I personally created an AI, then used that AI to generate a work, wouldn't that be a work of human authorship, with the Ai serving as a tool, just as if I had used a paintbrush or a word processor to create the work?
Of course, if one argues that the AI is exhibiting creativity in creating the work, that would contradict any argument that the AI is just a tool aiding in the expression of human creativity.
Thaler has been for years claiming that its his AIs that are being creative, and trying and failing to get copyrights and patents and things on that basis.
He always fails, but it's NOT because anyone has ever said "using a AI tool doesn't involve creativity"; they've only ever said that any creativity involved is (more or less by definition) on the part of the human, not the software.
(All the articles, like this one, saying that in the Thaler cases the PTO found that "art made with an AI can't be copyrighted", are just wrong; that issue has never been decided afaik.)
The obvious argument is that, just like with Photoshop or anything else, when a human uses a piece of software to create a work, the human is the author of the work. This Kashtanova thing MAY be them tentatively ruling otherwise, but since we know about it only like third hand, it's really hard to say.
If anyone has an actual statement of any kind from the PTO on this, I'd love to see it...
