|
|
|
|
|
by doh
1515 days ago
|
|
That's the correct legal interpretation. What that means in simplified lingo is that AI can't author copyrighted material, meaning that AI tools that aids to creation is ok but AI producing creation is not. The outstanding question is where is the limit, but that will require a few court cases. |
|
The case in question was a PR stunt intended to get the AI recognized as the author in order to build clout for the company that created the AI. “Look, a judge determined that our AI is so advanced that it can be the author of works of art, and is therefore a person.” It’s similar to stunts that try to get courts to recognize god as real or not real.
The fundamental question was not whether the work could be copyrighted or not - only whether the AI could be listed as the author of the work. It would be similar to if I tried to register a copyright with my digital camera listed as the author of the work. A camera is not a person, so it cannot be the author.