Technology

82131 readers

4265 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

210

U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI-generated material (www.cnbc.com)

submitted 8 hours ago by FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

57 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday ⁠to take up the issue of whether art generated by artificial intelligence can be copyrighted under U.S. law, turning away a case involving a computer scientist from Missouri who was denied a copyright for a piece of visual art made by his AI system.

Plaintiff Stephen Thaler had appealed to the justices after lower courts upheld a U.S. Copyright Office decision that the AI-crafted visual ⁠art ‌at issue in the case was ineligible for copyright protection ⁠because it did not have a human creator.

Thaler, of St. Charles, Missouri, applied for a federal copyright registration in 2018 covering “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” visual art he said his AI technology “DABUS” created. The image shows train tracks entering ‌a portal, surrounded by what appears to be green and purple plant imagery.

The Copyright Office rejected his application in 2022, finding that creative works must have human authors to be eligible to receive a copyright. U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration had urged the Supreme Court not to hear Thaler’s appeal.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 11 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

It's not generally difficult at all for an artist to prove that they are the original creator of a certain piece. My photography for example is available for anyone for free and in high resolution but I'm the only one with the full resolution pictures and RAW files. So much data is lost when a picture is compressed into .jpg format.

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Seems impossible to me but I'm not an artist - I write code as a hobby and see no way to definitively prove I wrote any code that an AI could also produce. Is there any aspect of art creation that an AI cannot replicate?

[–] ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

You don't have drafts or anything that can show the history of development? I write as a hobby and I have tons of drafts that show the development of my stories over time. If somebody tried to claim my works were AI, I could easily dispute that.

[–] dan@upvote.au 4 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

What if the drafts were created using AI too?

Code is often in a source control system of some sort, which tracks changes to the code (who changed it, when it was changed, and a description of what was changed). It's similar to having a lot of drafts.

I don't think that could prove that a human wrote it, though.

I think in cases like this, the author could prove they created the code/story/art/whatever by having a deep understanding of the material. That's how Michael Jackson defended against lawsuits saying he copied someone else's song - he described his songwriting process and could hum/beatbox every instrument in the track.

[–] ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

How you gonna fake years worth of hand written notes, dated drafts, and revision history?

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

If the training data for "drafts" and "hand written notes" exists then one can train an AI on it, and generate it the same way. Do some artists share such things?

[–] ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Idk what you're talking about. How's an AI going to fake handwritten? Not handwriting, handwritten. An AI can't write in graphite and ink.

[–] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know how to write code myself, but intuitively it seems a little different in this case.

When it comes to photography, I can show the original unedited RAW file with full resolution and full metadata and everyone else just has a lower-resolution JPG. The same thing applies to most digital art.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io -2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Can you, though? What if you didn't save it?

[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

This is how you get a reputation as being a troll, FaceDeer

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 4 hours ago

Says the guy who follows me around and dredges through months of my Reddit history looking for vaguely relevant comments to try to play "gotcha" with.

You could just block me, you know.