Live data from Hacker News

US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

reuters.com

561–562 of 562 posts

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#561
post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was speaking in general about the law, individual contracts nonwithstanding.

> I was speaking in general about the law, individual contracts nonwithstanding. Then no. If your assistant snaps the photo and their contract doesn't try to address this, then they are the author (in US law) and could file for and fight you for, the copyright. You can credit each other as much as you want - US law doesn't care much about that. European law tends to care.

Of course, and any reasonable person will have that in contract with their assistant, I didn't feel the need to specify.

Re: US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

#562
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who owns the copyright when you ask someone to take a photo of you using your phone in a tourist location? According to Wikimedia's legal analysis, it depends.[0] Furthermore, authorship and copyright are distinct. [0] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Authorship_and_Cop...

Let me add something even more funny: in Germany, some buildings and art installations are copyrighted which means they aren't allowed to be photographed for non-private usage despite being literally out in the open for everyone to see [1]. [1] https://www.derstandard.de/story/2000108536963/schraeges-urh...

similar discussion: https://law.stackexchange.com/q/17769/legal-sell-scale-model...
Post reply on HN