| ▲ | marginalia_nu 9 hours ago | |||||||
That is to the extent of my understanding, not correct. At least in the EU, "Given this framework, it follows that purely AI-generated outputs—those created automatically by an AI system without substantial human intervention—are not eligible for copyright protection in the EU. Such outputs are considered to fall into the public domain, making them freely available for anyone to use, reproduce, or adapt without seeking permission or providing attribution. The legal and commercial implications of this are significant. For creators and companies investing in AI systems that generate music, art, or text, there is no proprietary right over the final output unless a human has contributed in a way that meets the “intellectual creation” standard." https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2025/7740... The courts are AFAICT still undecided in the US regarding this. | ||||||||
| ▲ | somenameforme 9 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||
The last I read it's the exact same in the US. It requires 'substantial human intervention' which is going to be quite open to interpretation. The monkey selfie [1] issue is relevant. Setting up the gear to enable monkeys to take selfies was ruled ineligible for copyright: "only works created by a human can be copyrighted under United States law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention." [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput... | ||||||||
| ||||||||