KI-generierte Kunst kann nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt werden, nachdem der Oberste Gerichtshof eine Überprüfung der Regel abgelehnt hat

So the copyright belongs to AI itself, as far as I can see.

seriosuly? some piece of greed shit wanted to copyright ai bullshit? holy Jesus common, from all the seven deadly sins Greed just wins without even trying.

[deleted]

The catch is that the Copyright Office says that works that involve both human and AI contributions are copyrightable, but AI-generated *elements* don’t get copyright protection even within a copyrightable hybrid work.

That quickly complicates matters, because some of the tools make it easier to put amounts of human work in, especially with tools like ControlNet that push a locally-run model to follow one or more other images as guides. If you can do a rough sketch to set composition, slap down an OpenPose skeleton, and then specify character details in a prompt … there’s a decent argument that most of the composition was created by a human even if zero of the pixels were.

If someone can’t reasonably *tell* what parts are human and what not, then the distinction of copyrightability barely matters in practice; you can’t be *sure* that any given element is public domain. While the Copyright Office asks registrants to specify what parts of a hybrid work are AI … if people can’t independently *verify* the fact, what’s stopping someone from simply lying?

In the long run, this isn’t a significant victory against AI. The better question would be whether the *model weights* (the “connection strengths” between its “neurons”) are copyrightable. I think that the answer to that must be “no”, based on AI companies’ own arguments that their training on unlicensed works is not copyright infringement. If training in that way is legal, then “distillation” (training a new model on another’s outputs to copy the other’s function) should logically also be *even more* legal (since the outputs aren’t copyrightable). This is significant because it would remove most of the ability to monopolize a model via copyright: if anyone with enough computational power to train a model can legally copy your model out from under you…

… the catch is that to get precedent for distillation being legal, someone’s presumably going to have to be sued by an AI company who will have billions of ~~dollars~~ reasons to do everything possible to sue them into the ground, and few sane people would want to be that person.

there is so much misinformation about this story, even from the outlets reporting it. this title is incorrect.

what has been decided here is that a machine cannot hold copyright. not that AI generated or assisted works cannot enjoy copyright protection.

currently, copyright is not supposed to be granted for fully AI generated works, but AI assisted works, that include human elements, can and are being copyrighted right now.

Does this include Disney?

This should mean AI generated corporate works can’t be copyrighted either. Engineering schematics, art designs, whatever else these businesses use it for. But we all know that won’t be the case.

Mexico’s Supreme Court did this too last year. Looks like the courts aren’t too keen on the idea of AI being copyright protected

Very interested how this will play out with AI altered material. Does this mean I can take media, edit it with AI, then it’s no longer copyrighted material?

This would put all IP in a massive grey area.

They way companies will get around this is they’ll create AI art, and then have a human go in and tweak some things, and then BAM now it’s not copyrightable!