I believe that in theory but has that been established by case law or precedent? I’m interested because I have not heard that. I could totally see law makers say companies can hold copyright, company owns Ai system, company now owns the copyright to what Ai made.
Its well established case law that human people must be the creator of a copyrighted work. There have even already been cases involving LLMs and other generative “AI” that have upheld the precedent.
I was actually going to argue that the monkey selfie lawsuit went against that but I double checked some sources and I was wrong. The court actually found exactly as you described and that since a non-human didn’t create the media it could not be copyrighted.
Not just jobs. AI can’t hold copyright. This could have messy legal implications.
I believe that in theory but has that been established by case law or precedent? I’m interested because I have not heard that. I could totally see law makers say companies can hold copyright, company owns Ai system, company now owns the copyright to what Ai made.
Its well established case law that human people must be the creator of a copyrighted work. There have even already been cases involving LLMs and other generative “AI” that have upheld the precedent.
Interesting.
I was actually going to argue that the monkey selfie lawsuit went against that but I double checked some sources and I was wrong. The court actually found exactly as you described and that since a non-human didn’t create the media it could not be copyrighted.
Today I learned… Thanks!