Having done a fair amount of homeless outreach in my time, this is the reason why folks who have been on the streets for a while are so vulnerable to paranoia. If you don’t have a place to live in America, you’re under threats of assault like this all the time, from both everyday citizens and the cops. That constant fear and need to always be looking over your shoulder eats people up from the inside out.
I wish folks would realize this when discussing the homeless problem and the associated behavioral issues. Even if you’re not crazy when you hit the streets, a couple of months out there will either make you paranoid or make you dead.
It looks like the key in the ruling here was that the AI created the work without the participation of a human artist. Thaler tried to let his AI, “The Creativity Machine” register the copyright, and then claim that he owned it under the work for hire clause.
The case was ridiculous, to be honest. It was clearly designed as an attempt to give corporations building these AI’s the copyrights to the work they generate from stealing the work of thousands of human artists. What’s clever here is that they were also trying to sideline the human operators of AI prompts. If the AI, and not the human prompting it, owns the copyright, then the company that owns that AI owns the copyright - even if the human operator doesn’t work for them.
You can see how open this interpretation would be to abuse by corporate owners of AI, and why Thaler brought the case, which was clearly designed to set a precedent that would allow any media company with an AI to cut out human content creators entirely.
The ruling is excellent, and I’m glad Judge Howell saw the nuances and the long term effects of her decision. I was particularly happy to see this part:
This protects a wide swath of artists who are doing incredible AI assisted work, without granting media companies a stranglehold on the output of the new technology.