These ridiculous datacentres use large volumes of resources purely to benefit the companies, which are closing-off human made content for their profit.
The problem is that it won’t. We essentially already have the best case scenario, which is that ai slop is non-copyrightable, meaning that if disney for example tries to generate a slop movie, everyone is free to distribute it so you can’t really make any money off of it. Extending copyright pretty much always ends up benefitting corporations, not hurting them.
I looked it up and unfortunately the ruling is a lot weaker than I initially thought. An artwork generated solely by ai cannot be copyrighted, however, there can be copyright on ai-generated works with a human author(?)¹
I’m anti-copyright and anti-corporation.
These ridiculous datacentres use large volumes of resources purely to benefit the companies, which are closing-off human made content for their profit.
As long as copyrights exist to restrict me, I’m adamant on they restricting billionaires too.
If they want to extinguish it, I’m listening. Otherwise, they should pay statutory damages for every work they are pirating with those LLMs.
The problem is that it won’t. We essentially already have the best case scenario, which is that ai slop is non-copyrightable, meaning that if disney for example tries to generate a slop movie, everyone is free to distribute it so you can’t really make any money off of it. Extending copyright pretty much always ends up benefitting corporations, not hurting them.
If Disney uses generative ai to animate large parts of their movie I’m pretty sure it will be copyrighted still, no? Or did I miss something?
I looked it up and unfortunately the ruling is a lot weaker than I initially thought. An artwork generated solely by ai cannot be copyrighted, however, there can be copyright on ai-generated works with a human author(?)¹
¹https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/19/ai-art-cannot-be-copyrighted-appeals-court-rules.html