This is actually probably as good as any US copyright shit can be. Wholly generated works aren't copyrightable, but an actual artist using an AI to do some generative fill or something on a photo isn't screwed out of their ownership. Time will tell how it actually gets used I guess

[–] piggy@hexbear.net 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

In practice they'll wholly generate things and lie through their teeth in court and to the copyright office -- the government will take them at face value.

[–] JohnBrownsBussy2@hexbear.net 6 points 9 hours ago

I think this has been the standard for a while? Just like how re-tellings of public domain works can qualify for copyright.

[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 4 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

The race to the bottom is on.

[–] peppersky@hexbear.net 2 points 7 hours ago

The race to the bottom is in its 70th consecutive yearly round

[–] Cammy@hexbear.net 2 points 7 hours ago

bottom-speak