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.
This is a false equivalency that equates natural learning and human agency with “machine learning”, when in that they are not remotely the same. This is a common and extremely flawed personification of a mathematical system that simply does not “learn” in the same way that a human being does.
Contrary to what seems to be a popular belief today, the creative insight of a human artist is not simply a combination of all of the other works of art that they have seen (akin to training data superimposed into a model). A human artist has the x-factors of personal agency, taste, and the constant sensory barrage of simply living as a huge part of their creative development. For every painting that a human artist sees, they see an unknowable score of other things that influence their perception of the world and art.
This is very much not a legal point that you’re arguing here, by the way, it’s a technical and practical one.
“Style” is not what’s in question. It never was, and it wasn’t a word that I used in my example.
ML models are not trained on “style”. They are trained on actual works.
And in many cases (including in OpenAI’s case) trained on an unimaginable amount of full copyrighted works, in their entirety, without license or consent from the copyright holders, often times pirated with DRM circumvented.
It’s a simple fact of the technology that OpenAI’s Ghibli filter could not have been made without training off of a large amount (probably every frame of every film, if I had to make an educated guess) of their actual artistic work. OpenAI have admitted that much themselves in court.
You seem to have forgotten that this is a social media website comments section discussion, not a court of law.
I’m sharing my personal opinion, with a background in art, music, and programming, not law.
I’m entitled to do so, and I won’t stop because it should go without saying that the copyright system matters a great deal to people who actually make things.
If you think you’re above that then I’m not sure why you’re even here, frankly. Are you here to argue that any of this is fair use? I don’t see you making that case… (Maybe slightly timidly making that case, but not really going for it.)
In the end this topic is central to human culture and society, it’s not some kind of intellectual exercise for only people in blue suits to muse about.
Welcome to “the court of public opinion”, where Texan judges and Roman popes alike can be wrong.
And you are forgetting that it’s a discussion about a court of law. It’s right in the title, this is about a lawsuit.
You’re presenting a big wall of text that’s explaining your opinions on the matter. I could likewise present a big wall of text that explains my opinions on the matter. Neither of those things actually matter, though. The title and subject of this thread is not “hey, what do you all think about this stuff?” It’s “here’s what the US Supreme Court ruled (or in this case chose to let stand without making a ruling).”
I get what your opinion is. I’ve seen this opinion presented plenty of times over the years. I don’t think that’s how the courts are going to rule, though, because so far they’ve been ruling in other ways and I think I’ve got a pretty firm understanding of why they’ve been ruling that way.