The title is bullshit. The case in question never said AI works are not copyrightable. Here is what the case was about:
After its creation, plaintiff attempted to register this work with the Copyright Office. In his application, he identified the author as the Creativity Machine, and explained the work had been “autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine,” but that plaintiff sought to claim the copyright of the “computer-generated work” himself “as a work-for-hire to the owner of the Creativity Machine.”
Plaintiff requested reconsideration of his application, confirming that the work “was autonomously generated by an AI” and “lack[ed] traditional human authorship,” but contesting the Copyright Office’s human authorship requirement and urging that AI should be “acknowledge[d]
Both parties have now moved for summary judgment, which motions present the sole issue of whether a work generated entirely by an artificial system absent human involvement should be eligible for copyright.
So this case is about someone trying to claim copyright of a work created by an AI without any human involvement because they own the AI system in question. But copyright claims require human creativity to be part of the work so the whole thing was denied copyright protections.
This does not extend to all AI created work, a lot of which does have some human involvement in the process - at the very least the prompt used to guide its output. The question is still open as to how much human involvement is required for an AI generated work to be copyrightable. The case itself states this:
Undoubtedly, we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works. The increased attenuation of human creativity from the actual generation of the final work will prompt challenging questions regarding how much human input is necessary to qualify the user of an AI system as an “author” of a generated work, the scope of the protection obtained over the resultant image, how to assess the originality of AI-generated works where the systems may have been trained on unknown pre-existing works, how copyright might best be used to incentivize creative works involving AI, and more.
So clearly AI generated work can possibly be copyrighted but how much human involvement in the process is still an open question. The title is pure clickbait and completely false.
The title is bullshit. The case in question never said AI works are not copyrightable. Here is what the case was about:
So this case is about someone trying to claim copyright of a work created by an AI without any human involvement because they own the AI system in question. But copyright claims require human creativity to be part of the work so the whole thing was denied copyright protections.
This does not extend to all AI created work, a lot of which does have some human involvement in the process - at the very least the prompt used to guide its output. The question is still open as to how much human involvement is required for an AI generated work to be copyrightable. The case itself states this:
https://www.scribd.com/document/665871482/Thaler-v-Perlmutter
So clearly AI generated work can possibly be copyrighted but how much human involvement in the process is still an open question. The title is pure clickbait and completely false.