If AI artwork starts to generate significant value, I definitely anticipate this will change.
Right now, US copyright law requires that the work be created directly by a human, as decided in the monkey selfie case and as later decided in other AI art cases. I don’t necessarily agree with that - I think that an argument can be made that employing an AI is the same as employing another mechanical process - but I’m very torn on that.
In any case, what’s going to cause them to reverse these rulings is when Hollywood and music entertainment starts to use more AI generated assets. If Disney or Netflix comes out with an AI generated superhero movie, you can bet that they’re going to be granted copyright. Same with generated dialogue. It will be found that the creative input into the AI via prompts constitutes sufficiently significant human involvement, which is the opposite of what they’re ruling right now.
If AI artwork starts to generate significant value, I definitely anticipate this will change.
Right now, US copyright law requires that the work be created directly by a human, as decided in the monkey selfie case and as later decided in other AI art cases. I don’t necessarily agree with that - I think that an argument can be made that employing an AI is the same as employing another mechanical process - but I’m very torn on that.
In any case, what’s going to cause them to reverse these rulings is when Hollywood and music entertainment starts to use more AI generated assets. If Disney or Netflix comes out with an AI generated superhero movie, you can bet that they’re going to be granted copyright. Same with generated dialogue. It will be found that the creative input into the AI via prompts constitutes sufficiently significant human involvement, which is the opposite of what they’re ruling right now.