AI-Generated Art Can't Be Copyrighted After Supreme Court Declines To Review the Rule (theverge.com) 96
The Supreme Court of the United States declined to review a case challenging the U.S. Copyright Office's stance that AI-generated works lack the required human authorship for copyright protection, leaving lower court rulings intact. The Verge reports: The Monday decision comes after Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist from Missouri, appealed a court's decision to uphold a ruling that found AI-generated art can't be copyrighted. In 2019, the U.S. Copyright Office rejected Thaler's request to copyright an image, called A Recent Entrance to Paradise, on behalf of an algorithm he created. The Copyright Office reviewed the decision in 2022 and determined that the image doesn't include "human authorship," disqualifying it from copyright protection.
After Thaler appealed the decision, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled in 2023 that "human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright." That ruling was later upheld in 2025 by a federal appeals court in Washington, DC. As reported by Reuters, Thaler asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling in October 2025, arguing it "created a chilling effect on anyone else considering using AI creatively." The U.S. federal circuit court also determined that AI systems can't patent inventions because they aren't human, which the U.S. Patent Office reaffirmed in 2024 with new guidance. The UK Supreme Court made a similar determination.
After Thaler appealed the decision, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled in 2023 that "human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright." That ruling was later upheld in 2025 by a federal appeals court in Washington, DC. As reported by Reuters, Thaler asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling in October 2025, arguing it "created a chilling effect on anyone else considering using AI creatively." The U.S. federal circuit court also determined that AI systems can't patent inventions because they aren't human, which the U.S. Patent Office reaffirmed in 2024 with new guidance. The UK Supreme Court made a similar determination.
Adverts and films? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Adverts and films? (Score:5, Informative)
I think the catch is that you have to:
- Be able to prove that the subject is AI generated
- That you have to be able to extricate the AI output from any human curated elements
Here it was easy as the person said the work was wholly generated. Once you have it as merely part of a whole, it becomes difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the catch is that you have to: - Be able to prove that the subject is AI generated
Proving that the work was generated by AI should be pretty minimal effort by the defendant in an infringement suit. It's a fact that would be easily established by documents and/or testimony from the plaintiff.
- That you have to be able to extricate the AI output from any human curated elements
This would be the much bigger issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes however, most of these "AI generated" slop is 100% a prompt, and 0% human thought.
This is the danger. If you use AI in your film, television, music, or 2D images, people are going to take it, and go "you can't copyright AI generated slop". If you want to make a copyright claim, you're going to have to prove that you did not use AI at all. That means anything you want to profit from has to have a clear start-to-finish of your project. You can't reverse an AI generated image into a sketch and ink layer, a
Re:Adverts and films? (Score:5, Insightful)
have to prove that you did not use AI at all.
This court case hasn't gone that far, it said a wholly computer generated work is not subject to copyright, not that it disqualifies any work that contains it.
From what I'm seeing, I fully expect that a creative work that contains some AI in it will absolutely still be considered copyrightable, just that people can consider the AI generated portions of it to be public domain if it contains no elements from then in particular...
Weirder, if you took a human generated original character and had an AI generate animation frames... I suspect the derivation of the human content would still be subject to the copyright (otherwise, you could just launder copyright infringement through an LLM)
This specific case was a generation from allegedly nothing at all and entirely composed of procedural computer output with no claim of human inputs whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes however, most of these "AI generated" slop is 100% a prompt, and 0% human thought.
The AI did not generate the prompt, and as simple as the prompt may be it was produced by human thought.
Now I would accept that everything after the prompt is 100% AI generated; but unless the prompt came from AI then it came from human thought.
From what I have seen an AI capable of creating fantastic slop is useless without fantastic prompts from humans.
I have seen amazing results from some, and in my opinion truly worthless slop from others.
As stupid as I thought it sounded when I first heard it like thre
Re: (Score:2)
The issue with your logic is that the whole AI model would not generate anything useful from your brilliant prompt had it not been trained with copyrighted material. And even if it's covered by copyright, why would it be your copyright and not the company's who trained the model?
If I brilliantly describe an evocative scene in detail in text and then a painter paints a brilliant picture following my description exactly, I still don't own the copyright to the resulting painting, only to my original descriptio
Re: (Score:2)
If I brilliantly describe an evocative scene in detail in text and then a painter paints a brilliant picture following my description exactly, I still don't own the copyright to the resulting painting, only to my original description.
If you commission the painting you would most likely by the agreement own the copyright and compensate the painter on delivery.
If you were inspired by a 100 other paintings you saw that influenced the scene your described, your copyright is not void by the copyright of the previous works that inspired yours.
This also answers your first question, the trained material and the company that trained the model cede the copyright to the prompter in the same way the painter does.
The company that trained the model d
Re: Adverts and films? (Score:2)
The courts have already addressed this and shot it down. No matter how creative the prompt is, the output of the AI is not eligible for copyright. The prompt itself may be, but only if it's actually creative and not just a rote list of descriptors. And even then, a prompt isn't all that likely to produce the same output every time. The way the LLMs currently work, there's quite a bit of randomness that go into the image generation.
Re: (Score:2)
The courts have already addressed this and shot it down. No matter how creative the prompt is, the output of the AI is not eligible for copyright.
My understanding is that the copyright will not be awarded to the AI.
Otherwise if someone wanted to retain copyright on something that was AI generated then could they simply deny that it was AI generated?
Or the other way around, can someone violates someone's copyright by claiming that some portion of the work they were violating had AI's hand on it?
Where is the burden of proof, and the later seems more and more plausible that in complex creations like a movie or a video game that AI would have touched som
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Adverts and films? (Score:1)
. In 2019, the U.S. Copyright Office rejected Thaler's request to copyright an image, called A Recent Entrance to Paradise, on behalf of an algorithm he created.
I don't understand the phrase "...on behalf of an algorithm he created."
An "algorithm" isn't a legal entity, how can it hold a copyright?
There's a subtlety in this story that gets lost in the yelling about "can't copyright AI output"...
Re: Adverts and films? (Score:2)
For the purposes of this section, a copyright claimant is either: (i) The author of a work...
Re: Adverts and films? (Score:2)
But the courts have shot down that argument repeatedly now. Only humans can be a an author. Period. An AI is not a human and so can't be an author. A monkey is not a human and so can't be an author.
Re:Adverts and films? (Score:5, Interesting)
Generally the AI generated portion cant be. Ie if you generative fill on a photoshop design you've been working on, you can copyright the whole design, but the AI generated fill part, itsn't necessarily covered.
I suspect the fine details arent fully worked out in precedent yet, but they'll get there.
This is the best possible outcome. You cant just fire people and replace them with AI if you want IP. If I make an advertisement and want copyright it'll need at least SOME work done by humans. If you want music you can own and generate royalties from, it'll need humans in there somewhere. This protects human labour while still letting these tools be out there to *assist*.
Re:Adverts and films? (Score:5, Insightful)
The absolute best case is that regular people can use these tools to make something on a similar level to that of major studios. That's the only way that actual creatives are getting any significant money out of this. As much as we'd all love to see the major studios and labels fail and disappear, don't expect them to go quietly. Eventually laws will be made to govern the use of this technology and coincidentally they will be written to benefit the entrenched players.
Re: (Score:2)
They need not be talented artists or masters of their craft.
I mean clearly the ruling says that the parts that can be copywritten *need to be made by humans*
If what you said is true (you infer that you just need humans to *ask* for AI to do the work, absent talent) then that doesn't square with the conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean clearly the ruling says that the parts that can be copywritten *need to be made by humans*
Yeah, but the standard is bullshit. If I download a photo and run a single photoshop filter on it with default settings, such that you cannot recognize any of the elements from the photo so it's not a derivative work (which is itself subjective) then I can copyright the result. But I did basically fuck-all, the software did it all. What's the difference between that and generative AI, where you actually do more "work" in prompt engineering? Answer, more subjective bullshit.
This is not to say that I think th
Re:Adverts and films? (Score:4, Interesting)
>but the AI generated fill part, itsn't necessarily covered.
Only in the fact that IF you can get the exact match asset yourself without using the original copyrighted image to extract the asset from. And you damn well better be 100% certain it was also 100% AI made, and had no human input before being used. Which is... not really ever going to be the case in works that are human made with some AI contributed assets. They will always be cropped / extracted / color corrected / SOMETHING to fit the narrative of what the human wanted. Human post processing introduces the human element into to work.
One great example is collage, as it's already explicitly covered by copyright. You, I, or anyone can make a collage image completely from AI generated assets, and it would be covered under copyright. It would also be a copyright violation for anyone to remove any of the assets from the collage and claim ownership or replicate them without your permission. The only exception would be fair use use cases.
If someone could somehow replicate the exact asset themselves by using the exact same prompt, settings, and neural network in the AI, then and only THEN it would be not a copyright violation.
Re: (Score:1)
This is the best possible outcome. You cant just fire people and replace them with AI if you want IP. If I make an advertisement and want copyright it'll need at least SOME work done by humans. If you want music you can own and generate royalties from, it'll need humans in there somewhere. This protects human labour while still letting these tools be out there to *assist*.
I'd make an even stronger argument -- not only is this "the best possible outcome", it is the only plausible outcome.
IP doesn't exist in. Copyright doesn't exist. Unlike the right to control your body or the right to free thought or the right to defend yourself, there is nothing about IP law that is natural, tangible, or inherent to existing. IP law is a whole-cloth invention. Governments conjure and construct IP protections, justified by one and only one purpose -- to provide extra ways for humans to earn
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So then - all these AI generated adverts and film sections...we're saying those can't be copyrighted?
The supreme court did not take the case, so nothing has changed from before.
It still depends how much human creativity was the input to make them.
A) Check with the copyright office, if there is an approved claim, it is protected.
B) Look at the input. Do you feel the input alone is enough to be protected?
This is not at all a legal test, but keep your answer in mind for your defense if you ever get sued for assuming the work isn't protected.
"Draw a kitten" would not be worthy of protection.
A two paragraph de
Re: (Score:2)
OK, but does the description being copyrightable mean the work also is?
Suppose some guy commissions an artist to make a painting based on a two paragraph detailed scene description. Further suppose the artwork gets entitled by that two paragraph detailed scene description, so others know what it was. (Weird, but that's par for the art world.)
Now suppose some other guy commissions another artist, who has nev
Re: (Score:2)
While the film or ad can't be copyrighted if it's AI generated, if the script was written by a person, it is copyrighted (automatically when it's created, registration is something different).
Of course, Hollywood is working diligently towards 100% AI generated movies at the click of an icon, with no human involvement (or pay) at all.
Perhaps they'll slow down on this, at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
the restriction is that depending on what you use you will be sued into oblivion anyway. copyright is about big money, just don't mess with big money.
imo ai is just a tool. going to this extreme is just as absurd as prohibiting photographs to be copyrighted, because the images were actually captured by a chip or a photosensitive emulsion and not a pencil or a brush. well, there's also the use of the tool and the intent. someone decided the framing, the motive, the mood, whatever, to express something. simil
Re: (Score:2)
For the adverts, they still depict trademarked products. Even if the content is not copyrighted, you still don't have free reign to use that trademark in an unauthorized manner.
Re: (Score:2)
If you manage to avoid copying the human contribution to it. If not, they'll sue about the last touches they did manually.
Re: Adverts and films? (Score:2)
It doesn't negate any copyrights or trademarks on content inside what is generated. My AI generated ad for an Acme brand slingshot can't be copywritten but that doesn't allow you to snag my Acme trademark for your own use.
What does this mean for AI-Generated software? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is AI generated software not protected by default?
Re: What does this mean for AI-Generated software? (Score:3)
Correct. Although once you add your own stuff to an AI generated software project then slap a license on it then you're probably covered.
Re: (Score:3)
You'd have to add a minimum amount [stanford.edu] of "your own stuff" to qualify for copyright , but it's not a high bar.
And a license covers you anyway, as that is entirely separate from copyright. You can sell public domain stuff under a restrictive license, and the license is enforceable. If you're the only source of the public domain stuff (like compiled software that requires some kind of activation to prevent redistribution, you know, like most games these days), it's even practical.
Re: (Score:2)
And a license covers you anyway, as that is entirely separate from copyright. You can sell public domain stuff under a restrictive license, and the license is enforceable. If you're the only source of the public domain stuff (like compiled software that requires some kind of activation to prevent redistribution, you know, like most games these days), it's even practical.
I wouldn't say "entirely separate". The license is the permission to copy the software that you need in order to use it without infringing the copyright. You could try entering into a contract with someone to provide them a copy of some public domain software, with clauses in the contract that say they have to pay you $X if they redistribute it, but enforceability of that contract may be questionable. And if the other party does get a copy of the public domain software from somewhere else, you'd have absolu
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say "entirely separate".
I would, and did.
The license is the permission to copy the software that you need in order to use it without infringing the copyright.
There are many, many, many other forms of contracts.
You could try entering into a contract with someone to provide them a copy of some public domain software, with clauses in the contract that say they have to pay you $X if they redistribute it, but enforceability of that contract may be questionable.
Not on the basis of it being public domain. If it is otherwise a valid contract, entered into in good faith by both parties, it's enforceable.
And if the other party does get a copy of the public domain software from somewhere else, you'd have absolutely no claim of copyright infringement.
Hence the part (that you ignored) about being the only source making it practical. And whether or not you have a copyright infringement claim is irrelevant, when you have a breach of contract claim.
Contracts cannot supersede copyright rights, but when there is - by definition - no copyright, that doe
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck peeling apart a project that is a mix of public domain and copyrighted code, it's so fraught with peril that I would not recommend doing it. That's why these old projects that are based on some public domain code with a license and changes on top were such a nightmare for anyone looking to bring fixes back over to the original public domain version. Kind of the same scenario when you're dealing with AI generated code, that is often contributed in multiple sessions that are interspersed with manual
Re: (Score:2)
For software the whole point is, that it is (often) hard to pick it apart. When I contribute a MIT licensed patch to a GPL project, then you could in theory use the patch under MIT license, but in practice it won't be useful without linking it to a lot of GPL code, which requires you to put the result under GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
Just add your own comments. Should be enough.
I don't get it (Score:2)
Thaler asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling in October 2025, arguing it "created a chilling effect on anyone else considering using AI creatively."
You can still use AI and copyright stuff under your name, so I'm not sure what the problem here is. I think this guy just wants attention and his "creations" won't get it any other way.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I think this nails it, that the issue is the people wanting to do stunts of saying a 'machine' holds the copyright.
I suppose the decision can play a factor if someone can prove a work is *wholly* generated despite a holder's claim that it is at least partially human created, but good luck doing that versus the 'author' claiming any generated output that matches now is an artifact of the models having ingested their content.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I think this nails it, that the issue is the people wanting to do stunts of saying a 'machine' holds the copyright.
That would be because you can't claim copyright on something that you didn't create.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but good luck proving someone *only* used AI in a creative work. You have only their word to go on and even if you have *obvious* LLM artifacts, they could always claim they did it on purpose, or that they added some human crafted elements to it.
Re: (Score:2)
You can still use AI and copyright stuff under your name, so I'm not sure what the problem here is.
You can, but of course the copyright would be invalid, because the name of the creator is inaccurate.
If you did this, however, you'd probably get away with it, because it would be up to the person re-using the material to show that the material copyrighted in your name wasn't actually produced by you.
Re: (Score:2)
You can, but of course the copyright would be invalid, because the name of the creator is inaccurate.
That would only be true if it was created by some other person. Same as it has always been.
Re: (Score:2)
>You can, but of course the copyright would be invalid, because the name of the creator is inaccurate.
No it wouldn't be you fucking idiot. Images don't get copyrighted to any of the tools used to make them.
Correct. Because a tool can't copyright anything. That's the whole point, the image can't be copyrighted by the AI.
God, can people PLEASE report correctly... (Score:5, Informative)
... on AI and copyright?
"A Recent Entrance to Paradise" was rejected because it had no human authorship. There was - by design - no human input, no prompt, not even human control (to the degree possible) over the training.
The actual USPTO stance on AI is that AI is a tool, and tools can't hold copyright (nor can animals - only humans). The ability to gain copyright protection on a work is based on human creative endeavour regardless of what tools are used. If the amount of human creative input is sub-threshold, then the result cannot have any copyright protection, but if the human creative work is above threshold, then it can, on the basis of the creative things that the human did. Note that even selection of outputs from a large output set can (depending on the circumstances) qualify; curation is copyrightable. The USPTO specifically states as much.
I myself hold a copyright on a work made with the use of AI tools. Officially registered with the USPTO (I went with them even though I don't live there because they have an official registry and tend to be precedent-setting). I fully disclosed the use of AI (what it did vs. what I did) in my application. You absolutely can copyright works made with AI tools. But (A) the tool cannot hold the copyright, and (B) you have to have done more than just write "a cute puppy" or whatnot and post the first thing that comes up. You have to have done a threshold amount of creative work, and that threshold creative work becomes the basis for protection. Use of AI tools does not disqualify a work from protection.
Re: (Score:2)
(To be clear, I do have some gripes with the current status. Namely, I think there's a double standard applied vs. cameras, which are also based on tools, but you'll even get e.g. fixed security footage - essentially zero human creative effort - treated as copyright protected, or photos taken with little thought or curation treated as protected. But in this regard, the solution is to be stricter with photography, not more lax with AI)
Re: (Score:2)
fixed security footage - essentially zero human creative effort - treated as copyright protected,
So why can't the porch pirates demand residuals every time their performance is re-aired?
How much did Alec Baldwin make for shooting someone, while the poor ICE agents have to make do with their lousy GS-5 salary.
Re: (Score:2)
So why can't the porch pirates demand residuals every time their performance is re-aired?
It's not their video. They're just on it. They don't have a right to control the use of their image when the video is evidence of commission of a crime, at least not in this country. Maybe in the UK or something, where truth is not an absolute defense against libel.
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for that clear explanation. Do you have any example (your own, or others) of what threshold is the standard today? As you mention, a simple prompt isn't enough but it seems that drilling down into the semantics is critical here.
Again thanks
Re: (Score:2)
This is the reason courts exist :) Everything about where the boundaries of copyright fall is quite fuzzy. And courts often differ about surprisingly fundamental things (music is a particularly thorny area, as there's a rather limited number of possible basic melodies, so there's inherently a lot of overlap, even by random chance).
It's easier to give examples of "things that definitely aren't copyrightable" and "things that definitely are". The in-between gets complicated.
In my case, I sometimes use AI i
Re: (Score:2)
(Just to be clear, and to add another layer of complexity: it's only "creative" work that counts toward copyright; it's not based on "sweat of the brow". So there's explicit judgement required on what counts as "creative work")
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that this will hold water, at least in the long term.
If you and I both input identical prompts - detailed ones - they will produce different results.
This seems to indicate that the machine is doing the work, not you or me.
The only way (Score:2)
This is the only way any sanity at all can exist. Otherwise you have AI crank out an endless stream of content for the sole purpose of getting first copyright.
I really don't know how this entire thing is going to be dealt with in the future.
The other day, I was thinking about AI, as it pertains to the possibility of having entertainment (either video, music, or a full-blown interactive game) produced real-time for the consumer, on demand, based on their feedback. This reminded me of the book Ender's Game.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing burger (Score:2)
Just modify the AI generated content slightly in some way and you can claim full copyright. It's that simple. You have rights. The AI does not.
AI generated work is not protected (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That runs into two questions: Would notes generated by AI be considered as not privileged? Do clients have to pay for AI generated content?
Attorney-client privilege (and its cousin attorney work product) have nothing to do with copyright, so your first question is meaningless.
For your second question, clients are either paying a fixed fee, in which case it doesn't matter what tools the attorneys use, or paying per hour, in which case using an LLM may make the cost lower (whether or not it affects the quality that the client gets is an entirely separate question).
Re: (Score:2)
Attorney-client privilege (and its cousin attorney work product) have nothing to do with copyright, so your first question is meaningless.
Did you miss my very first sentence when I wrote: "While this has not been tested, it would seem that if AI generated art cannot be copyrighted then anything generated by AI is not protected in other ways.
For your second question, clients are either paying a fixed fee, in which case it doesn't matter what tools the attorneys use, or paying per hour, in which case using an LLM may make the cost lower (whether or not it affects the quality that the client gets is an entirely separate question).
And my point again (which you missed) is what lawyers have charged as a fixed fee was based on the amount of work previously required. A filing costs $XXX amount because it took a certain amount of work. If filing are generally easier, then my question again is does that/should that change the fixed fee
Re: (Score:2)
Attorney-client privilege (and its cousin attorney work product) have nothing to do with copyright, so your first question is meaningless.
Did you miss my very first sentence when I wrote: "While this has not been tested, it would seem that if AI generated art cannot be copyrighted then anything generated by AI is not protected in other ways.
The entire question of whether or not AI-generated work can be protected by copyright is because copyright law explicitly requires some amount of human creativity in the work. Attorney work product privilege does not have that requirement, so the question isn't applicable.
For your second question, clients are either paying a fixed fee, in which case it doesn't matter what tools the attorneys use, or paying per hour, in which case using an LLM may make the cost lower (whether or not it affects the quality that the client gets is an entirely separate question).
And my point again (which you missed) is what lawyers have charged as a fixed fee was based on the amount of work previously required. A filing costs $XXX amount because it took a certain amount of work. If filing are generally easier, then my question again is does that/should that change the fixed fee system?
I'm far from being a free-market fanatic, but this is a situation where it should work pretty well. If a lawyer can charge less than their competitors for the same work, they'll start getting more work.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire question of whether or not AI-generated work can be protected by copyright is because copyright law explicitly requires some amount of human creativity in the work. Attorney work product privilege does not have that requirement, so the question isn't applicable.
You do understand that I was asking about something else, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Would you like to clarify your question?
Sure..... (Score:1)
Re: Sure..... (Score:1)
There's a subtle issue you are missing.
The image in question was completely generated without any human prompting - a man wrote a program specifically to create the image, it accepts no input, no prompting - and wanted to assign copyright protections to the algorithm, not himself.
Imagine Hollywood had a program called "MovieMaker" and it worked by taking a completed movie script and a stack of actor profiles for each part and output a finished movie. The person/company that fed the "MovieMaker" program coul
AI generated images... (Score:2)
...may be cool and fun, but since they require no effort to create, they have no monetary value
People with no talent are welcome to have fun with the tech, but it will result in a tsunami of slop
Real artists will continue making real art
Re: (Score:2)
That slop will sadly be good enough for enough people that most artists will barely be able to make a living. A tsunami of slop will be good enough for an alarming amount of people.
Not good. (Score:5, Interesting)
"real artists" who have decent employment are going to be rare. Commercial art is how most make a living producing "art." This is going down in a huge way and quickly. Good enough is a pretty low bar, especially in art.
History shows this. How many people make a living making hand-made wood products? It's a small niche while it used to be a real industry; which took time to die off into insignificant size.
Sadly, programming is going. Not as low but for a while there will be too many and no union so wages will drop. Luckily, skill is involved with many niches. Tons of programming involves mundane work that repeats horribly-- we've had nearly 50 years of attempts to make libraries, templates and inheritance cross compilers because work is repeated abstractly on so many levels. That is a huge amount of the time and money spent since the beginning of computers. A huge aspect is being automated and even at a slow pace, it's scope is so large it will feel like a quick shift. Nice that it's going... but also not so nice-- the new bits are few and far between ; they can be difficult thought intensive problems. Without a break or some to drive home context and a bigger picture while resting one's brain is going to be a big problem. That tedium does a lot of good since you need to study a bit to get a better grasp of the bigger context and promotes creative thinking. But then "good enough" is a lot of crap programmers and unlike other jobs-- somebody may enjoy wood working so it continues at least as a hobby. Most programmers do not enjoy the mundane anal picky shit that makes up a lot of programming.
I'm not saying AI programs. It takes the dull abstract repetition that is everywhere and will remove most of that. Like DESIGN PATTERNS moving from pseudo-code into actual code reuse! Now that can be done. The problem is the 1% is working to replace us expensive thinkers. What we actually could do well and sooner is make a next-generation reference tool and integrated smart auto-complete. We are trying to have it autocomplete the whole program. It should be focused on assisting instead of making us grade slop that is trying to cheat at the assignments not solve our problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody rephrase me... posting when tired (not working) always messes up the translation of thought to words.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, lots of craftsmen USED to make a living. It's a hobby now. Sure you can find a small number who actually make a living, I said it's a niche. You are comparing two time periods; before the industrial revolution the number and surely the % of gainfully employed was much higher. Most products are industrially produced, even the crafted stuff is usually made up parts...
There are layers to the issue (Score:2)
There are a number of things that go into the process of creating "art", so the real issue at play is, "how much effort is put in by the human to come up with the AI generated output?". Isn't that how it works when someone writes something using the tools at their disposal? We take it for granted that a writer can use anything from pen or pencil to write, to a typewriter, to a word processor. But, then you add other tools, grammar checking for example, or even using AI to re-word something because the
Re: (Score:1)
Where's the pun? Are you just going to ignore that golden opportunity?
Re: (Score:2)
I had the option to ignore it, so I did. Too many people can't wrap their heads around the difference between AI replacing humans when it comes to work, and AI also being a tool that humans can use.
Re: (Score:1)
So, this is what a broken heart feels like...
Re: (Score:2)
I am seeing what has been going on in the USA, so it's easy to feel a bit broken these days.
Naturally it can't due to patent trolls (Score:3)
The problem with generative AI is it's generative. As in, it can keep generating. So if they allowed it, as patents and copyrights are already BS out of control, is someone is going to have AI Slop constantly push out AI slop non stop, patent all of it, and make it impossible that if you create something that it's not covered by their patent.
That's it, and we all know it, and this is just a guy who wants to push out tons of AI generative images, so everything falls under his 'patent' and can troll for licensing. A massive cease and desist case. It's just another angle to make sure 'regular people' don't have to acces to these tools and content and have to pay someone else money to do absolutely anything.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with generative AI is it's generative. As in, it can keep generating. So if they allowed it, as patents and copyrights are already BS out of control, is someone is going to have AI Slop constantly push out AI slop non stop, patent all of it, and make it impossible that if you create something that it's not covered by their patent.
You are aware that copyright and patents are very different things, right? Trying to use LLMs to flood the USPTO with patent applications is almost certainly going to either be very expensive (there's a fee for filing a patent application) or get you into trouble with the USPTO.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it would be harder to flood patents for sure, but they'll use AI to come up with every patent it can, filter through the least likely to work, find the ones that are potentially the most lucractive, follow the laws as loosely and least cost to them as they can to keep the patent, and chase people for royalties if they try to do something their AI thought of awhile ago, even if it has nothing to do with them and what they do, and sue people.
So, yep, there will be a cost, but some of these companies do
Does this mean ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Show me an AI that doesn't use existing works to generate its content. If it were fed only on things in the public domain, then no, it wouldn't infringe because there would be no copyright. If it uses the works of people still living and/or covered by copyright, then it absolutely infringes. Shouldn't be hard to suss that one out.
Re: (Score:1)
Show me a human artist that's never seen an image from someone alive and covered under copyright before and is producing art.
Your argument is stupid and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Literal Art School trains you to look for, look at, download and print copyrighted "reference" materials to make your own art. Which is more of a copyright violation than any training done. Training doesn't have you make a PHYSICAL COPY of material. It's akin to surfing google images and studying the images you sc
Is AI different from other procedures? (Score:2)
AI-generated procedural art doesn't count, but does other procedural generation count? If so, why?
Say I write a ray-tracer and use it to generate a stereotypical floating mirrored ball over a Mandelbrot plane, but I simply release the image and I never tell you I used a computer to help draw it. It's copyrighted for decades, and then some archeologist or grave-robber going through my crap finds the program. "Sloppy lied! He used a computer! Copyright revoked!"
Are Dwarf Fortress' procedurally-generated world
No Copyright, BUT (Score:1)
In related news... (Score:2)
Microsoft just told us 30% of the code they're writing is not covered by copyright.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/2... [cnbc.com]
Sane minds prevail (Score:2)
When creating art, there should be human involvement to at least some degree. There should be some effort; at least an attempt at some creativity.
If there's no human involvement in the work, then there's no creativity involved. And no, telling an AI to do something for you is not doing something yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
When creating art, there should be human involvement to at least some degree. There should be some effort; at least an attempt at some creativity.
If there's no human involvement in the work, then there's no creativity involved. And no, telling an AI to do something for you is not doing something yourself.
That seems reasonable. ... although we do consider photography creative, and have copyright on photographs. "Pointing and clicking" might be oversimplifying the photographer's creativity, but it would be interesting to compare that level of creativity with the "prompting" that a person uses to generate a "AI art".
Not all AI copyright cases; just this one (Score:1)