Computer scientist Stephen Thaler again told his ‘Creativity Machine’ can’t earn a ©

  • bassomitron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 month ago

    Before anyone gets excited:

    The Court of Appeals did, however, acknowledge that works made by a person with the assistance of AI can qualify for copyright, while also noting that no legal standard defines the amount of human participation necessary for such recognition.

    I think the primary motivation for this guy to doggedly pursue this case, is so he could claim ownership over anything this/future model(s) produced, regardless of his involvement. It would’ve set a bad precedent in a lot of ways.

    Anyway, people/corpos can still click a button to generate shit and claim copyright since the court acknowledges that any miniscule amount of human involvement qualifies.