this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
210 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

82131 readers
4265 users here now

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

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. 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
[–] 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.