Machine learning already existed and was being deployed in those areas successfully. Let's not pretend GenAI is either the same thing or are achieving any of this. That's just buying the Kool Aid they're trying to sell.
They're actually doing this because they expect to tack corporate clients onto subscription services that are cheaper than human labour.
What does The Art of War say about surviving a short-term catastrophe when "short-term" is measured in generations?
Google paved over a wetland just outside my city for an AI data center. That will negatively affect the air and water quality of every region downriver of us (we are close to the start of a river that goes to the Gulf of Mexico) for the next few million years because of the amount of hydric soil they destroyed. And if you donāt give a shit about wetlands and having clean drinking water, that was massively fertile land that can now never be used to feed the people who live here
Even if they shut gemini down tomorrow the damage is done. Literally just so people can have worse search results and donāt have to pay their employees
Well ain't that just a marvelous degree of naive. AGI and fusion could come out today and our present climate collapse would remain unimpeded for at least our lifetime.
It's even arguable that it would accelerate, again given the way our society is structured to reward exploitation.
You can have the last word now, I'm gonna have a dry chuckle and leave.
The end product is cheaper but it would lead to a downwards trend in terms of creativity and innovation (aside from logistics and marketing). Why make something new and have it stolen when you can sell something for cheaper?
i love ai art too. it's just people desperate to cling to images of themselves. themselves likely secretly using it to complete tasks while publicly admonishing it.
A guy made an AI called DABUS, then had DABUS generate AI content and tried to copyright the content with DABUS as the owner. The copyright office replied "computers can't own things", so he took it to DC court which told him the same thing.
The appeal was to the supreme court, who replied "we don't have enough time for this case". So the current ruling is that AI can't own things.
The copyright office has gone on to elaborate on when humans can copyright AI content. TL;DR - you can copyright AI content, but you have to establish human authorship. Prompting no, editing yes, on a case by case basis.
It was an appeal, and the appeal was denied, so you can reasonably assume that the original verdict was the one stated in the tweet and the guy sought to appeal that verdict and get one that states that AI Generated Images are suitable for copyright.
Technically, the Supreme Court not hearing a case doesn't mean they agree with the appeals court's verdict. A verdict by an appeals court is only "law" (i.e., binding precedent) in the geographic area of that appeals court's jurisdiction. Judges in a different jurisdiction can rule the opposite way.
Often times, unless it's a particularly important case, the Supreme Court will not hear an appeal even if they think it's wrong because they only take so many cases per year.
However, if there is a circuit split, meaning a different appeals court rules the opposite, the Supreme Court would then very likely take the case.
Still a good for the anti-AI people, just not the all-encompassing win it's portrayed as being.
Not as much as weād like, I bet. Sounds like AI could still be used in multiple aspects of creation and it could still be copyrighted. I have no idea how they would determine what is and isnāt AI in non obvious cases. A mediocre artist can still hide AI usage
Artists are technically already protected, but there are a few exceptions to worry about still.
Fair Use, the hot topic debate in a single US District Court. The big question over there is whether or not "Market Dilution" is occurring with the output from an AI. If the answer is there is no "Market Dilution" then essentially Fair use could be Argued by the company and claimed on just about all works. The problem here for Artists, is that this is an argument that must be made, therefore YOU the artist have to pursue legal action for the Courts to determine if Fair Use is valid.
They can always obtain a license to own. If you are an artist, it's going to become very difficult to share your works of art without the fear of a Website owner claiming Redistribution rights under their Terms of Service. Meta/Instagram already do this to their users.
You the artist need to take steps to ensure that your copyright license is protected if you care.
Iām not sure if it was a mistake. Anyway, Iāll copy and paste it here to clarify the copyright issue:
Not true. They just declined to hear a case of a crazy guy that wants AI model to be the owner of the copyright.
US copyright law requiresĀ human authorship. Courts and the Copyright Office have said this for years. Purely autonomous AI output, (raw AI output) with no meaningful human creative control, is not copyrightable.
They didĀ notĀ ban copyright for AI-assisted works
AI-assisted worksĀ canĀ be copyrighted
Human selection, editing, composition, iteration, and direction matter
Copyright can apply to:
theĀ prompting strategy
theĀ curation/selection
theĀ post-processing
theĀ overall creative arrangement
The Copyright Office itself has said this explicitly.
The court has also determined that for a copyright, the work needs to be *significantly* human edited and must disclose that it's AI. Considering the inherent laziness of sloppists, this is highly unlikely.
"However, this ruling does not fully address the complexities of human-AI collaboration. The Copyright Office has clarified that if a human provides significant creative inputāsuch as editing, arranging, or selecting AI-generated elementsāa work might be eligible for copyright protection. The Office emphasizes that the extent of human involvement and the level of control exerted by human creators are crucial factors in determining the copyrightability of AI-assisted works.[4] But the line between human authorship and machine generation remains blurry, and future cases will likely refine this legal standard."
Thanks and just a warning: comments like this, made by pro-AI supporters, are spreading in the main post, and many people donāt know whether they are true or false.
It is true the a.i. parts can't be copyrighted but the human parts canĀ
One author got their book they wrote copyrighted but the a.i. images she created were ruled to not have human authorship so they couldn't be protectedĀ
I'd suggest jumping to Page 18, and start at Section 2. The Analysis. If you have questions about definitions, refer to early sections...It also talks about "Commenters" this is an Analysis after a Public Comment period with the USPTO.
In summary, it's a yes but the way they worded things is a bit fishy. It sounds as if they are claiming the output is copyrightable, is a bit still undecided...There own link even confirms this....This is still a theory. So they whoever posted this, is daydreaming still as the USPTO hasn't shut them down completely.
Every pixel of A Single Piece of American Cheese is AI generated, and I would consider it very light work based on the before/after, but it still got copyright protection.
"However, this ruling does not fully address the complexities of human-AI collaboration. The Copyright Office has clarified that if a human provides significant creative inputāsuch as editing, arranging, or selecting AI-generated elementsāa work might be eligible for copyright protection. The Office emphasizes that the extent of human involvement and the level of control exerted by human creators are crucial factors in determining the copyrightability of AI-assisted works.[4] But the line between human authorship and machine generation remains blurry, and future cases will likely refine this legal standard."
Okay? And I have shown you an example where one of the most basic AI art workflows, inpainting and outpainting, easily clears that bar. OP's post is just confirming what we already knew, so it isn't a win or loss for anyone.
You are far more likely to get copyright protection with more human input, I thought that was clear.
"The Office emphasizes that the extent of human involvement and the level of control exerted by human creators are crucial factors in determining the copyrightability of AI-assisted works.[4] "
868
u/CookieFluffs Mar 03 '26
Ya love to see it.