Court Cantrell does not comply4d ago

"[Stephen] Thaler asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling in October 2025, arguing it 'created a chilling effect on anyone else considering using AI creatively.'”

And so it should -- because using AI the way he did (to generate an image that isn't even appealing) is already a violation of other artists' copyrights.

You can't copyright art that you plagiarized.

https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright

1/2

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 threadCourt Cantrell does not comply

In my view, the best way to fight back against people like Thaler is to take their "art," re-create it in one's own medium, and then release it widely under a CC0 (Creative Commons Zero) license.

#CC0
#CreativeCommons
#art
#ArtByHumans
#AIArtIsNotArt
#NoAIart
#plagiarism
#CopyRightViolation

2/2

Mar 3 at 4:37pmMastodon for Android