AI Art Isn’t Copyrightable | Dall e Mini | Photoshop Free | Borisdayma Dalle Mini Github | Turtles AI

  A federal judge upheld the denial of a #copyright for #AI-generated #art, cementing that human #creativity is essential for protection under US law. According to a recent report, a federal judge upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of art created by artificial intelligence is not eligible for copyright protection. The ruling comes as a blow to advocates seeking protections for AI-generated works. The judge, Beryl Howell, affirmed that human creativity is central to copyright law, even as new technologies emerge. The case centered on a 2018 application to copyright an artwork titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," which was described as created autonomously by an AI system called the Creativity Machine. The applicant, Stephen Thaler, listed himself as the copyright owner under the work-for-hire doctrine. However, the Copyright Office denied the application, stating that copyright law requires human authorship. Thaler sued, arguing the decision was unlawful. But Judge Howell sided with the Office's position, writing that "human authorship is a bedrock requirement" and copyright was designed to protect "works of human creation." The ruling referenced past court decisions establishing that works like photographs require human input like framing and lighting choices to warrant protection. Howell concluded that extending copyright to AI creations would stretch the law too far from its purpose of encouraging human creativity. The decision comes as AI art generators like DALL-E 2 and Stable Diffusion prompt questions around copyright of training data. It signals that US copyright law still sees human authorship as non-negotiable, even as technology advances. The ruling brings clarity that AI art lacks protections, which could impact Hollywood and other industries weighing reliance on AI-generated content. Highlights:

• - Judge upheld Copyright Office rejection of copyright for AI art piece.
• - Ruled human authorship remains a "bedrock requirement" of copyright law.
• - Cited past decisions requiring human input like framing for photos.
• - Clarity that AI art isn't copyrightable could impact Hollywood.

This ruling draws an important line around copyright law remaining focused on protecting human creativity, even as technology progresses. As impressive as AI systems have become, there's still value in maintaining the link between protection and humanity. But it raises interesting questions around acknowledging when machines can exhibit their own form of creativity, and how copyright may need to adapt in future. What do you see as the right balance between protecting AI advances and keeping copyright focused on human ingenuity? I'm interested to hear perspectives on both sides.