Templates of Cleo (my OC) holding a flag. (view body for more)
Templates of Cleo (my OC) holding a flag. (view body for more)
With speech bubble:
I made these initially for my personal use, but now I'm curious to see what you will make out of them.
Here are my own creations. All done with manual editing via GIMP:
(Trans Rights)
(Esperanto)
(Pakistan)
(Soviet Union) (Note that I'm not a USSR supporter, I made this one for shits and giggles)
(Anarcho-Communism)
(Nonbinary)
(Sapphic)
Made using Pony Diffusion V6 XL, a Shane Glines LoRA, and quite some inpainting and manual editing.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Read that again.
The case was unique because an inventor named Stephen Thaler listed his computer system as the artwork’s creator, arguing that a copyright should be issued and transferred to him as the machine’s owner. After the U.S. Copyright Office repeatedly rejected his request, Thaler sued the agency’s director.
He tried to get copyright for a computer as the author. Copyright is something only humans can hold. This is something entirely different.
Read the actual decision:
The decision was that the work was not copyrightable in the first place because it was made without human involvement.
No misinformation here.
The ruling in Thaler v. Perlmutter is about something else entirely. He tried to argue that the AI itself was the author and that copyright should pass to him as he hired it.
It doesn’t matter what he argued. What matters is the judge’s decision, and that was about whether AI generated material is copyrightable in the first place. The judge agreed on a summary judgement based on the Copyright Office’s claims, not the plaintiff’s claims. That is legal precedent.
Even the article you just linked to bears the headline:
U.S. District Court Rules That AI-Generated Artwork Is Not Eligible for Copyright Registration
It even goes on to say:
Because Judge Howell found that "Recent Entrance" was never even eligible for copyright protection, she did not address Dr. Thaler’s work-for-hire argument. The only question relevant to the ruling was whether a work generated autonomously by AI is protectable under the copyright law – to which the court responded with a definitive no.
That isn't an AI ruling though. That just upholds the existing precedent that non-humans can't hold copyright.
If you refuse to read the ruling, then I don’t know why you’re even arguing.
This has nothing to do with the guidance we are talking about.