• Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not much changes with this ruling. The whole thing was about trying to give an AI authorship of a work generated solely by a machine and having the copyright go to the owner of the machine through the work-for-hire doctrine.

      • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        These models are just a collection of observations in relation to each other. We need to be careful not weaken fair use and hand corporations a monopoly of a public technology by making it prohibitively expensive to for regular people to keep developing our own models. Mega corporations already have their own datasets, and the money to buy more. They can also make users sign predatory ToS allowing them exclusive access to user data, effectively selling our own data back to us. Regular people, who could have had access to a corporate-independent tool for creativity, education, entertainment, and social mobility, would instead be left worse off with fewer rights than where they started.

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only thing this ruling really says is “AIs are not legal persons and copyright can only be held by legal persons.” Which is not particularly unexpected or useful when deciding other issues being raised by copyrighting AI outputs.