This is the best summary I could come up with:

United States District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled on Friday that AI-generated artwork can’t be copyrighted, as noted by The Hollywood Reporter.

To contrast, Judge Howell noted a case in which a woman compiled a book from notebooks she’d filled with “words she believed were dictated to her” by a supernatural “voice” was worthy of copyright.

Judge Howell did, however, acknowledge that humanity is “approaching new frontiers in copyright,” where artists will use AI as a tool to create new work.

She wrote that this would create “challenging questions regarding how much human input is necessary” to copyright AI-created art, noting that AI models are often trained on pre-existing work.

His attorney, Ryan Abbot of Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP, said, “We respectfully disagree with the court’s interpretation of the Copyright Act,” according to Bloomberg Law, which also reported a US Copyright Office statement saying it believed the court’s decision was the right one.

Sarah Silverman and two other authors filed suit against OpenAI and Meta earlier this year over their models’ data scraping practices, for instance, while another lawsuit by programmer and lawyer Matthew Butterick alleges that data scraping by Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI amounted to software piracy.

The original article contains 386 words, the summary contains 201 words. Saved 48%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

This title is massively misleading. There is no ruling that says AI-Generated Art cannot be copyrighted at all. This case is about someone who filed for copyright listing the AI as the author and that the copyright should be transferred to him as the owner of the AI.

Plaintiff Stephen Thaler owns a computer system he calls the “Creativity Machine,” which he claims generated a piece of visual art of its own accord. He sought to register the work for a copyright, listing the computer system as the author and explaining that the copyright should transfer to him as the owner of the machine.

The claim was rejected on account of you can only claim copyright if you are human and an AI does not count as a human - so no AI can claim copyright over a works.

The Copyright Office denied the application on the grounds that the work lacked human authorship,

And he explicitly stated he gave no real input into the work.

Plaintiff requested reconsideration of his application, confirming that the work “was autonomously generated by an AI” and “lack[ed] traditional human authorship,”

But that does not mean AI generated work is uncopyrightable like the title claims - only that enough human input needs to be present to be able to claim copyright over any works. We have yet to decide on how much input is required for someone to claim copyright over an AI generated image, which the case clearly states:

Undoubtedly, we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works. The increased attenuation of human creativity from the actual generation of the final work will prompt challenging questions regarding how much human input is necessary to qualify the user of an AI system as an “author” of a generated work

So AI generated work is not uncopyrightable by the own conclusion of this case. Making the title of this article a complete lie. More cases will likely be done to draw the line as to what really counts as enough human input - this case was not one that does that. Only confirms that non-humans cannot claim copyright over an image. And that you need enough human input for a work to be copyrightable.

Autonomously AI generated art cannot be copyrighted.