Close Menu
    Technik

    Der Oberste Gerichtshof der USA lehnt es ab, Streit über Urheberrechte für KI-generiertes Material anzuhören


    Der Oberste Gerichtshof der USA lehnt es ab, Streit über Urheberrechte für KI-generiertes Material anzuhören

    https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/02/us-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-dispute-over-copyrights-for-ai-generated-material.html

    Share.
    View 28 Comments

    28 Kommentare

    2. tacticaldodo on

      Edit : i misread the title

      ~~Well, that is going to be a fun ride, go from the war on pirates with jail for offenders to the ‚good‘ ai dataset pirates~~

      ~~They are going to need to spin and spin and spin more to justify this flip~~

    3. zorillaaa on

      “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”

    5. Gastroid on

      On one hand, this is a huge ambiguity caused by new technology that needs to be cleared up, since the problem will only get more prevelant as time goes on. At least there’s some case precedent now, not that precedent matters much these days.

      On the other hand, this is something that Congress should be tackling with new legislation to overhaul copyright in the era of AI.

      On my third hand caused by forever chemicals and microplastics in the water supply, I don’t trust the current Congress or Supreme Court at all right now to make an informed, consumer-friendly decision on AI, so screw it all.

    6. Lethalmusic on

      No human creator = no copyright.

      Seems pretty clear cut, no wonder it was rejected.

      Trying to put a copyright claim on the output of a plagiariasm machine is really fucking stupid, but we will see a lot more cases like this

    7. GeekFurious on

      To sum up: you still can’t steal other people’s work and claim it is yours.

    9. _WDFTKJ_ on

      Quite ironic to even try to protect AI art considering that most AI models are trained on copyrighted materials without prior approval from the author.

    10. Sweet_Concept2211 on

      I gave a maglev train a push before it hit speeds of 300 mph.

      Do I get an Olympic medal for being the world’s strongest man?

    11. PajamaPants4Life on

      Time to release the AI generated Conservative Supreme Court porn.

      Or better yet, *court rulings*.

    12. SonovaVondruke on

      I think the bigger legal question is “can I copyright something that AI *helped* me to write/draw/whatever?” At what point does the human contribution cease to be transformative enough to protect?

    13. novwhisky on

      What’s to stop humans from creating AI art without any digital watermarks and claim a personal copyright?

    14. AnonymousTimewaster on

      If it can’t be copyrighted, then I think that is very good for the acting industry. Studios won’t want to risk not being able to copyright their shit.

    17. Just-Signature-3713 on

      This sounds like a huge out: if AI kills someone who is culpable?

    18. Derpykins666 on

      In this context, good. People trying to copyright their AI amalgamations should never be allowed. They did none of the work, AI pulls from hand-crafted copyrighted material all the time. These guys are trying to take credit for work they didn’t even do.

    20. joeymonreddit on

      I’m not advocating for AI because it’s currently an extremely overhyped tool, but if software and other work products can be copyrighted and owned, why not AI produced stuff? Surely “stealing code” or scripts or excel templates, etc. would fall into the same category. What’s the difference between copy/pasting vs writing a prompt to be considered to have a human creator? I understand the differences between the 2 scenarios, but how does the human creator part differ?

    21. turb0_encapsulator on

      okay, but what if the human then makes a small alteration to the AI-created work?

    24. ThrowawayAl2018 on

      When AI takes over the Supreme Court, then are those judgement (& hallucinations) from AI court valid? Where are the checks and balances that starts from „we the people…“ and not „we the AI…“

    25. Hector_P_Catt on

      I predicted this problem about 20 years ago, when I attended a talk on a guy using genetic algorithms to create new designs for antennae. The computer came up with a whole new way to build the antenna, that no human would likely have ever thought of. I thought about it in terms of patenting the design, who would be named as the inventor? The person who wrote the algorithm didn’t invent it, he maybe invented the algorithm, but the final design output had no direct human involvement in its creation. I knew then that this issue would become ever more important as time went on, and here we are.

    26. More-Afternoon-1204 on

      How is declining to take up an issue considered a decision? Am I missing something?

    28. More-Afternoon-1204 on

      Wait, what if a new law was made up because of this? What have we just set in motion?

    Leave A Reply