I’m sure there will be links like “Court Rules AI Art Can’t Be Copyrighted” aplenty. They will be wrong.
The guy trying to copyright the work here insisted that his program was entirely autonomous, that it didn’t need his input (parameters, editorial oversight, etc.).
Why didn’t he argue that writing the program (the pipeline, the model, etc.) was part of creating the work, and like making molds in order to make a series of sculptures? That the “hand of the creator” was there? Maybe he didn’t actually write the program?
This is an interesting historical note:
Thaler’s stance put him in with failed plaintiffs of the past who insisted that gods, spirits, or unattributed voices communicated works they transcribed, and therefore got no copyrights.
So had she not kept her paintings secret during her lifetime,
Hilma af Klint might had trouble copyrighting them.
The pictures were painted directly through me, without any preliminary drawings, and with great force. I had no idea what the paintings were supposed to depict; nevertheless I worked swiftly and surely, without changing a single brush stroke.[14]