Mastodawn

so 3 courts + US Copyright Office say you cannot copyright nor patent anything made primarily with LLMs because automata aren't human.

#SCOTUS won't review these rules because copyright is meant to protect human creations, not software or automata.

this may mean #AWSlop #Microslop are “de-copyrighting” & “de-patenting” their own proprietary software as they let automata “code” 🧐

❝ AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted after Supreme Court declines to review the rule
https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright

AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted after Supreme Court declines to review the rule

The US Supreme Court has declined to hear a case over whether AI-generated art can be copyrighted.

The Verge

Show thread

A.B. Murrow Mar 3

@blogdiva I'm ignorant in the language here. Does "decline to make a ruling" mean they don't want to step on anyone's toes, or they don't think there's a case?

Could this rear its head again later?

Show thread

Bee (a dork)

@abmurrow @blogdiva (I'm not a lawyer, but) SCOTUS is primarily an appellate court, they take 99% of cases on appeal, at their discretion. Declining to take the cases means that the lower (circuit) courts' rulings stand, and remain as binding precedent in those circuits. There's multiple reasons not to take an appeal and to my knowledge they don't publish explanations for declining to take appeals, but probably they either think the lower court is very likely right, and/or they think it's just not important enough to give it some of the limited space on their docket.

Technically no court case is *truly* final as sufficiently motivated lawyers and judges can get even decades-old settled precedent overturned, but it's not likely to here unless Congress passes a significantly reworked copyright act as the current statute seems pretty clear about the whole "human creativity" thing (demonstrated by several courts agreeing) even if the language is a little more legalistic than that.