simple@lemm.ee to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 17 hours agoUS appeals court rejects copyrights for AI-generated art lacking 'human' creatorwww.reuters.comexternal-linkmessage-square6fedilinkarrow-up1222arrow-down12 cross-posted to: news@lemmy.worldAskUSA@discuss.online
arrow-up1220arrow-down1external-linkUS appeals court rejects copyrights for AI-generated art lacking 'human' creatorwww.reuters.comsimple@lemm.ee to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 17 hours agomessage-square6fedilink cross-posted to: news@lemmy.worldAskUSA@discuss.online
minus-squareBeej JorgensenlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down4·14 hours 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-up2·6 hours 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.
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.