- Joined
- Jul 12, 2021
FYI, this particular case is entirely meaningless and has always been meaningless, and yet every time it comes up the modern tech media fellates it as if it's some significant blow to AI.
Here's what happened.
Thaler is a man who allegedly developed an AI model. The AI model made something resembling art. Thaler applied for copyright for the art, but wrote his AI model's name down as the copyright holder.
You cannot do this, as only humans can hold copyright. The copyright office told him to cut it out, if he wrote a non-human's name on the application it was just always gonna get rejected. But he kept trying and suing because he insisted that his AI was conscious and should get its own copyright over what it made.
The court's rejection of this is all just rooted in what is basically a clerical error. If you fill out the forms wrong, they'll get rejected. If the government asks you for your social security number on official documentation and you write "poopybutt" instead, they would also reject that submission.
This has nothing to do with AI at all and everything to do with the court continuing to plead with Thaler to stop being a fucking retard. That's why the Supreme Court wouldn't hear it, because it's just a retard filling out forms incorrectly.
None of the articles covering this mention that AI works can be protected by copyright as long as you submit them under your own name and you also meet the copyright office's criteria for protection as they laid out in part 2 of their copyrightability report. The copyright office has already granted protection to thousands of AI and AI-assisted works and will continue to do so, despite what the breathless article titles try to imply.
Last edited:
