@[email protected] to [email protected]English • 1 month agoUS appeals court rejects copyrights for AI-generated art lacking 'human' creatorwww.reuters.commessage-square7fedilinkarrow-up1236cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up1236external-linkUS appeals court rejects copyrights for AI-generated art lacking 'human' creatorwww.reuters.com@[email protected] to [email protected]English • 1 month agomessage-square7fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squareBeej JorgensenlinkfedilinkEnglish1•1 month 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-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish2•1 month 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.