this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
309 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

technology@lemmy.world
82285 readers
4486 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
309
U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI-generated material (www.cnbc.com)
submitted 3 days ago by FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
69 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
[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (24 children)

Gonna be fun times in courts as anyone can claim something was generated by AI even if an artist claims they created it.

I wonder if this will end up limited to art or can be expanded to other copyrighted works.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 2 points 3 days ago (9 children)

I wonder what percentage has to be created by a human to be eligible for copyright. For example, if someone generates an AI image and then changes a few pixels, is that human-created? What if they over-paint 30% of the image? 50%? What if someone creates something in Photoshop from scratch, but they use Photoshop's in-built AI driven tools to enhance it?

Either anything that uses AI in any capacity is uncopyrightable, or there has to be a line somewhere, so... Where is it?

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

If the final product isnt the raw output from my understanding. The current laws are there mostly to stop the whole thing from turning into copyright mills.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)