This is a clickbait article based off of a different clickbait article. The actual legal issue is the old Thaler v. Perlmutter case where Thaler argued that an AI was the “author” of a work and therefore the AI should hold copyright over it. The court basically responded “AIs aren’t legal persons and only legal persons can hold copyright. You dolt. And since you insist that you’re not the author, that means you’re arguing that this work has no author. That means public domain. Next case!”
That was a while ago. Thaler appealed, and the judge just said “no, really.”
This doesn’t really mean much as far as the general copyrightability of AI-generated art goes. It just means that the AIs themselves can’t hold copyright, which I think pretty much anyone could have predicted from the start.
This is a clickbait article based off of a different clickbait article. The actual legal issue is the old Thaler v. Perlmutter case where Thaler argued that an AI was the “author” of a work and therefore the AI should hold copyright over it. The court basically responded “AIs aren’t legal persons and only legal persons can hold copyright. You dolt. And since you insist that you’re not the author, that means you’re arguing that this work has no author. That means public domain. Next case!”
That was a while ago. Thaler appealed, and the judge just said “no, really.”
This doesn’t really mean much as far as the general copyrightability of AI-generated art goes. It just means that the AIs themselves can’t hold copyright, which I think pretty much anyone could have predicted from the start.