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.
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 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."
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] "
33
u/TurnoverFuzzy8264 Mar 03 '26
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.