Ooh, the US copyright office makes a decision! And, I think, clearly a bad one! :) I should weblog, but I'm too lazy right now.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-created-images-lose-us-copyrights-test-new-technology-2023-02-22/
I did eventually weblog. Just some initial thoughts...
https://ceoln.wordpress.com/2023/02/23/the-us-copyright-office-takes-a-position/
@ceoln I'd sooner abolish copyright all together, but seems to me that if you edit the image enough then you can claim the copyright on the final edited one and delete the original AI-generated one.
How much editing is enough? Nobody will ever know.
It's work-for-hire I guess. Usually when I hire someone to do the work I get the copyright even though they made it, and I had about the level of creative input as writing a prompt.
@pre
There is various case law on how much modification is needed to have a new copyrightable thing, and the memo refers to it. They appear to be assuming that the requirements are the same as if the original image was #copyright by the software, and the user was (with permission) creating a separately copyrightable derivative work. I think!
They also address work for hire, but as in Thaler they are denying the theory that the human has the copyright because they 'hired' the software which is the creator -in- fact. That seems a bit Catch 22 to me, and I say a little about that in the weblog.
