>>35028009I thought I'd let you all in on something that's a little interesting regarding all the AI art that's going around. This is probably going to upset many of you.
According to the US Copyright office, only works that are created by humans are elligble for copyright protection. Works made by a machine without sufficient human input are not copyrightable.
Source: section 306 and 313.2 of
https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium-12-22-14.pdfThe Review Board of United State's Copyright Office has already determined that running such programs is not enough to satisfy "The Human Authorship Requirement", and while this hasn't been tested in court as of writing this, the Copyright Office's stance of not registering AI-made works is the current de facto law in the US. Someone may one day successfully argue that the selection of tags and settings chosen by the person running these AI programs should be enough to satisfy creative input required for these works to receive copyright protection, but as of now, no such case has been made.
Keep in mind, even though such images themselves would be inelligble for copyright, products that use them as part of a larger work, such as an AI created user interface in a video game, would most likely still qualify.
So in other words, your AI created art isn't a work of human authorship according to the US governemt and it is thus inelligble for copyright protection.
