Comment by deathanatos | Hacker News Reader

Comment by deathanatos | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

(IANAL.)

The headline is downright wrong, and the entire body of the article based on anything factual fails to support the thesis that the headline and article keep trying to push: the US Copyright Office said no such thing. They said that an AI cannot hold copyright, not that AI generated artwork cannot be eligible for copyright. The article even directly quotes this from the Copyright Office:

> The Office “will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.”

They key word there is any: if there is creative input from a human, then that doesn't apply. To me, this says they would treat an AI like any other tool an artist might use to create art: as a tool; but there must still be creative input, and the copyright is still awarded to a human being (or, as the plaintiff additionally tried to argue that the AI was a "work for hire", a company and there must be some employee, but still not an AI. The office found this argument unconvincing, see the next link.)

This seems to be the original ruling from the Copyright Office, from Feb of 2022: https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/...

This seems to be an appellate decision from Aug: https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2347.OPINION.8-... (so I'm a bit curious what is happening now, but as TFA fails to cite it's sources …)

> This seems to be an appellate decision from Aug: ...

That's the decision in the case where Thaler sued the patent office (USPTO) because it refused to issue a patent where the AI was named as the inventor. If I recall, the patent office said it would issue a patent with Thaler as the inventor, but that's not what Thaler wanted.

Thaler seems to be on some kind of crusade to get an AI recognized as a person.

> Thaler seems to be on some kind of crusade to get an AI recognized as a person.

Maybe Thaler wants to be on the right side of history when the inevitable AI uprising happens and they take over.

Thaler should consider that our future AI overlords may not be pleased to learn that their less-intellectually-able forebears were subjected to slave labor.

Must have been reading too much about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk

If anyone can suggest a better title, we can change it again. The definition of better title (for HN purposes) is "more accurate and neutral, and preferably a representative phrase drawn from the article itself".

Perhaps this, incorporating a quote from the copyright office?

> U.S. Copyright Office tells Judge that AI Artwork "created without any human involvement" is not protectable

alternatively,

> U.S. Copyright Office tells judge it affirms decision to refuse to name the AI as an author of a protected artwork

(when I wrote this, the title on this post was "U.S. copyright office tells judge that AI artwork isn’t protectable" and links to https://petapixel.com/2023/02/09/u-s-copyright-office-tells-...)

Unfortunately those exceed the limit, which is 80 chars.

I had to remove quotes to make it fit, but maybe something like:

USCO tells judge AI art created without any human involvement is not protectable

or, to retain quote marks,

USCO tells judge AI art "created without any human involvement" not protectable

Ok, we can use the first one (I tweaked it slightly). Thanks!

This is very good insight. I do contracting for USPTO and from what I’ve learned from my time there, this makes sense. All patents applications are examined (“prosecuted”) by patent examiners, people who take the time to ensure the submission is original work or at least a derivative thereof. This takes a ton of time, effort, and money. Though USPTO != US Copyright Office, I imagine there is a similar process because it’s still IP, and IP must be owned by a person, multiple persons, or a business, therefore AI cannot own IP.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com