this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
192 points (94.4% liked)

Technology

72360 readers
2882 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
192
AI companies have all kinds of arguments against paying for copyrighted content (www.theverge.com)
submitted 2 years ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/technology@lemmy.world
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago

That's the Thaler v. Perlmutter case, which has been widely misreported and misunderstood.

Thaler generated some art using an AI art generator and then tried to claim that the AI should hold the copyright. The copyright office said "no, you imbecile, copyright can only be held by people." Thaler tried to sue and the judge just confirmed what the copyright office said.

But note that Thaler never tried to claim the copyright himself. If he'd said "I made this art using AI as a tool" that would have been completely different. That's not what the court case was about.