The topic of human authorship is contentious, which is why the USCO is still leaving the doors open for AI-generated work that contains a sufficient level of human retouching and modification. To what extent is human intervention required in an AI-generated art to qualify for authorship and subsequent copyright protection remains unclear.
However, the agency has set a vague boundary for it: “A visual artist who uses Adobe Photoshop to edit an image remains the author of the modified image,” says the statement. However, the USCO will have the final say at determining whether a work of art has sufficient amount of human work involved — in terms of editing or changing — to grant it copyright protection.
The government body, which operates under the aegis of the Library of Congress, also makes it clear that it doesn’t want to dissuade users from employing cutting-edge tech like generative AI models for work. However, there’s a limit to how far a person or organization can rely on such advanced programs for creative work and still be able to retain authorship with copyright protections in tow.
While the ruling seems like a step in the right direction, it will also open the floodgates of copyright cases that are a mix of AI and human work, where each side will try to fight over the level of personal work involved, and contesting over human authorship claims.
For all the latest Gaming News Click Here
For the latest news and updates, follow us on Google News.
