It hadn’t been established yet in the EU. It would be a big deal if it went the other way in Europe so it being the same isn’t a nothing burger.

▲

semiquaver 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It hasn’t been established in the US either, despite how desperately some people want to misinterpret the handful of cases so far.

	▲	derektank 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It’s been established in the DC circuit, where basically any challenges to copyright office decisions would need to be brought. For all intents and purposes, until the Supreme Court or Congress decide to weigh in, it’s pretty well established that AI generated content cannot receive copyright. There will probably be some decisions around the edges regarding when human editorial input might result in a copyright being awarded to the editor, but it would be very surprising to see the precedent overturned completely, particularly given its grounding in previous caselaw.
	▲	aeon_ai 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Very clearly established. AI only = no copyright. “A Single Piece of American Cheese” got a copyright because it had human involvement in compositing. Theatre D’Opera did not because it was primarily prompt driven. Thaler didn’t because he said it was machine derived. Humans must be involved for a copyright.

▲

chungusamongus 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Did anyone expect it to go the other way? Europe is more hardcore about copyright than the US, and that's saying something. Germany is practically...well I was going to say they're nazis about it but perhaps that's in poor taste.