Comment by stale2002

> Yet the copyright office has already stated that getting an AI to create an image for you does not have sufficient human authorship to be copyrighted.

Gotcha.

That has nothing to do with fair use though.

Also, the same argument absolutely applies to photoshop.

If someone didn't include sufficient human authorship while using photoshop, that wouldn't be copyrightable either.

Also, the ruling has no bearing on if someone using AI, while also inputting a significant amount of human authorship. Instead, it was only about the cases where there weren't much human authorship.

At no point did the copyright office disclude copyright protections from anything that used AI in any way what so ever. In fact, the copyright office now includes new forms and fields where you talk about the whole process that you did, and how you used AI, in conjunction with human authorship to create the work.

> It's also presumptive to assume that AI tools

I'm not talking about the computer. I never claimed that computer's have rights. Instead, I'm talking about the human. Yes, a human has fair use protections, even if they use a computer.

> There's still several unsettled cases here.

There is no reason to believe that copyright law will be interpreted in a significantly different way than it has been in the past.

There is long standing precent, regarding all sorts of copyright cases that involve using a computer.