What a ruling on AI-generated art means for Hollywood’s future
What a ruling on AI-generated art means for Hollywood’s future
What a ruling on AI-generated art means for Hollywood’s future
A federal judge ruled that a piece of art generated solely by AI could not qualify for copyright.
A federal judge ruled that a piece of art generated solely by AI could not qualify for copyright.
The plaintiff, Stephen Thaler, wanted to list his AI system, called the Creativity Machine, as the sole creator of a work.
The plaintiff, Stephen Thaler, wanted to list his AI system, called the Creativity Machine, as the sole creator of a work.
The judge, Beryl Howell, said that "human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright."
The judge, Beryl Howell, said that "human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright."
The problem was not that AI was involved in the creation, but rather that there was no human directing it.
The problem was not that AI was involved in the creation, but rather that there was no human directing it.
The judge said that the law was designed to “adapt to the times” and noted cases when human creativity used new tools or media.
The judge said that the law was designed to “adapt to the times” and noted cases when human creativity used new tools or media.
The judge also said that further cases would likely prompt questions about how much human input is needed for AI-generated works.
The judge also said that further cases would likely prompt questions about how much human input is needed for AI-generated works.
Hollywood studios use AI as a tool to cut costs and open new possibilities for storytelling, not as a sole author.
Hollywood studios use AI as a tool to cut costs and open new possibilities for storytelling, not as a sole author.
The tech is not good enough yet for AI to create movies or TV shows without human involvement or guidance.
The tech is not good enough yet for AI to create movies or TV shows without human involvement or guidance.