this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
162 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

82131 readers
4172 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
162
U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI-generated material (www.cnbc.com)
submitted 6 hours ago by FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday ⁠to take up the issue of whether art generated by artificial intelligence can be copyrighted under U.S. law, turning away ​a case involving a computer ​scientist from Missouri who was ​denied a copyright for a piece of visual art made by his AI system.

Plaintiff Stephen Thaler had appealed to the justices after lower courts upheld a U.S. Copyright Office decision that the AI-crafted visual ⁠art ‌at issue in the case was ineligible for copyright protection ⁠because it did not have a human creator.

Thaler, of St. Charles, Missouri, applied for a federal copyright registration in 2018 covering “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” visual art he said his AI technology “DABUS” created. The image shows train tracks entering ‌a portal, surrounded by what appears to be green and purple plant imagery.

The Copyright Office rejected his application in 2022, finding that creative works must have human authors ​to be eligible to receive a copyright. U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration had urged the Supreme Court not to hear Thaler’s appeal.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 7 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

That seems like an unacceptable loophole. I shouldn't be able to create derivative media and have it be legal and public domain. The unlicensed training itself is a rights violation, and and media produced from it should equally be a violation.

[–] Bazoogle@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

That is a different conversation. If we assume a legally trained AI strictly on data it was allowed to train on, they are saying the AI cannot hold copyright.

I also don't see a loophole here, since it was denied anyway.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 1 hour ago

I shouldn't be able to create derivative media and have it be legal and public domain.

Well, there's the rub - proving that AI-generated works are "derivative works" (in the legal sense).

This court case had nothing to do with that. I'm aware of a few cases that have established the opposite, that AI models and their products are not derivative works. Do you know of any that have established that they are?

The unlicensed training itself is a rights violation,

There are cases where it's been ruled fair use.