A US court has ruled that AI-generated art, created without any human input, cannot be copyrighted under US law.
The Copyright Office has stated that AI-generated material without human involvement cannot be registered for copyright.
The key factor in determining copyrightability is "human involvement," which is missing in AI-generated art.
Copyright law currently invokes a "human involvement" criterion, which AI-generated art lacks.
The ruling sets a precedent for the protection of intellectual property and the role of human creativity in artistic expression.
The emergence of AI-generated art has sparked a controversy over whether it can be considered "real art."
A work of art created by artificial intelligence without any human input cannot be copyrighted under US law, according to a recent Washington, D.C.
court ruling.
The ruling has implications for the creative industry, as it sets a precedent for the protection of intellectual property and the role of human creativity in artistic expression.
AI-generated art lacks the essential element of human creativity and emotional connection, questioning whether it can truly be considered art.
The Copyright Office has provided guidance on the matter, stating that AI-generated material without human involvement cannot be registered for copyright.
A federal judge has agreed with US government officials that a piece of artificial intelligence-generated art isn't eligible for copyright protection in the country since there was no human involvement.
The ruling has sparked ongoing debates in the art and technology communities, questioning the definition of art and the role of human creativity in artistic expression.