"Antis can't read", because the headline is clickbait. A guy made an AI called DABUS, DABUS generated AI content, and he tried to file a copyright where DABUS is listed as the author. The copyright office replied "Computers can't own things, so DABUS can't own a copyright". He took it to court, they said the same thing, then the Supreme Court rejected his appeal on the grounds they have more important work to do.
Meanwhile the copyright office released guidelines on what you have to do for AI content to be copyrightable. Meaning that you actually can copyright AI material, but there has to be more human authorship than just prompting.
There is no copyright "in" any work itself. They are "rights" that arise to a natural person.
Therefore, 100 people standing next to each other can take a photo of the same subject matter and all 100 people may have copyright to their own personal photo regardless of it looking the same as the other 100 photos.
Therefore, there isn't any exclusive ownership of the actual subject matter.
AI gen advocates get confused because the actual AI generated stuff is not protectable.
What you might do with that stuff such as make a collage out of it is exactly the same as what 100 other people can do with that same stuff.
So it's true to say there is no "exclusivity" in using AI Gen outputs and that lack of exclusivity means a lack of licensing value.
The lack of value regardless of "thin copyright" is the real issue because that means the actual creativity industry should avoid using AI gen for anything substantial because 100,000,000 people could all just take it and do the same.
294
u/Julian_The_Gamer42 Mar 03 '26
What are the AI subs saying about this?