[rememberlenny]

Pro tip: Read the actual court decision and not just the headlines.

Tech law journalism is a telephone game that usually distorts what was actually said. People then form strong opinions on the headlines. Chaos ensues.

Example: “AI art cannot be copyrighted - US Federal Judge”

That’s not what the judge decided. The decision said you can’t assign a copyright to an AI. This doesn’t mean the thing you create with AI can’t be copyrighted. You write a prompt, press a button, cause something to be created, etc., and you’re the author not the AI.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23919666-thalervperl...

From @AndrewMayne on Twitter

[jojobas]

Worst case, load it in GIMP, set brush to 1% opacity and give it a couple of strokes. Boom, bona fide copyrighted work.

[tete]

That makes a lot more sense.

Else what prevents you from saying that Photoshop with all it bazilion function isn't an AI and therefor you can't copyright it.