simple@lemm.ee to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 month agoUS appeals court rejects copyrights for AI-generated art lacking 'human' creatorwww.reuters.comexternal-linkmessage-square7fedilinkarrow-up151arrow-down10 cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up151arrow-down1external-linkUS appeals court rejects copyrights for AI-generated art lacking 'human' creatorwww.reuters.comsimple@lemm.ee to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 month agomessage-square7fedilink cross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squareBeej Jorgensen@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0arrow-down1·1 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-squarexthexder@l.sw0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 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.