Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

A-Delonix-Regia t1_jac68de wrote

I thought we already heard this last week? Anyways, it is good for people who are making the type of art that is meant to be copyrighted (as opposed to stock images)

2

Ronny_Jotten t1_jacgcx8 wrote

Yes, but this week it's back with an even more outrageous click-baity title, so we get to argue about it all over again.

6

Skullpt-Art OP t1_jae53fg wrote

here's a different one with a less click-baity title

https://www.cartoonbrew.com/law/midjourney-ai-images-us-copyright-office-226437.html

1

Ronny_Jotten t1_jaeefk9 wrote

It's still click-baity though. The US Copyright Office did not say "AI-Generated Images Do Not Qualify For Copyright Protection". It said that in this particular case, there wasn't enough evidence of creative authorship on the part of Kris Kashtanova in producing the images, so they could not register the copyright. That doesn't necessarily apply to all images generated by or with an AI model.

It does mean that people can't copyright something they made with a simple prompt that in itself wouldn't qualify for copyright, so I guess that's "news". It seems obvious to me, but perhaps not to some of the people calling themselves "AI artists". Now they know. But it's not a general decision, not even a court decision.

2