Most people would think of AI artwork as artwork generated by a human selecting an AI instrument and giving it some direction or otherwise operating it. In such a case, the human would be indeed granted copyright for the work, provided they took due credit for it.
They simply argued that the AI itself isn’t something that could hold a copyright for work that was supposedly made without human involvement, as the claimant was purporting here. He was trying to stake some cheap historical legacy, presumably, and got shot down because we’re obviously not there yet.
We may see a day when the line of agency surrounding AI gets blurrier, but we’re still a long long way from it.
Most people would think of AI artwork as artwork generated by a human selecting an AI instrument and giving it some direction or otherwise operating it. In such a case, the human would be indeed granted copyright for the work, provided they took due credit for it.
They simply argued that the AI itself isn’t something that could hold a copyright for work that was supposedly made without human involvement, as the claimant was purporting here. He was trying to stake some cheap historical legacy, presumably, and got shot down because we’re obviously not there yet.
We may see a day when the line of agency surrounding AI gets blurrier, but we’re still a long long way from it.