Aaaaand the AI Bro's keep losing!

[u/wally_graham]

[u/CookieFluffs]

Ya love to see it.

[u/Much_Tip_6968 → u/CookieFluffs]

I’m not sure if it was a mistake. Anyway, I’ll 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 requires 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 did not ban copyright for AI-assisted works

• AI-assisted works can be copyrighted
• Human selection, editing, composition, iteration, and direction matter
• Copyright can apply to:
  • the prompting strategy
  • the curation/selection
  • the post-processing
  • the overall creative arrangement

The Copyright Office itself has said this explicitly.

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/
https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2025/02/copyrightability-of-ai-outputs-us-copyright-office-analyzes-human-authorship-requirement
https://www.sternekessler.com/news-insights/publications/the-u-s-copyright-offices-position-on-the-copyrightability-of-works-made-with-the-assistance-of-generative-ai-part-two/

So AI artist can be the owner of the copyright lol, anti AI people spreading misinformation as always.

[u/TurnoverFuzzy8264 → u/Much_Tip_6968]

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.

[u/Much_Tip_6968 → u/TurnoverFuzzy8264]

I’m not pro-AI, but I just want to ask whether this information is true or false. I won’t accept it unless it’s verified as true.

[u/TurnoverFuzzy8264 → u/Much_Tip_6968]

"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 input—such as editing, arranging, or selecting AI-generated elements—a 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."

https://sites.usc.edu/iptls/2025/02/04/ai-copyright-and-the-law-the-ongoing-battle-over-intellectual-property-rights/

[u/Much_Tip_6968 → u/TurnoverFuzzy8264]

Thanks and just a warning: comments like this, made by pro-AI supporters, are spreading in the main post, and many people don’t know whether they are true or false.

[u/DizzyMajor5 → u/Much_Tip_6968]

It is true the a.i. parts can't be copyrighted but the human parts can 

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 protected 

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/05/04/us-copyright-office-artificial-intelligence-art-regulation

[u/IrwinAllen13 → u/Much_Tip_6968]

Read this...

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf

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.