[lesuorac]

> If SCOTUS is saying that AI works, even those co-authored by humans, are not eligible for copyright/patenting;

They aren't.

The copyright office isn't either.

Everybody is very explictly saying that if you use say Sora to generate an image and you apply for a copyright with "Sora" as the author it'll be denied.

Same as if you apply for a copyright with "My Dog" as the author.

Authors must be humans and if you do not fill the author field out with a human it's denied. This has nothing to do with the tool used to create the art work.

[SirMadam]

While I would like to believe you, doesn't this legal document linked by the article show that, in at least one of the cases, the author WAS trying to apply with himself, "Mr. Allen", as the author? And not the AI?

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/byprrqkqxpe/...

[pseudalopex]

Allen's case has not reached the Supreme Court. The Copyright Office said he could have copyright of what he authored. But he refused to disclaim what Midjourney generated.