Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://mastodon.social/users/blogdiva/statuses/116161580735271469">your auntifa liza 🇵🇷  🦛 🦦 (blogdiva@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 03-Mar-2026 06:52:05 JST</a><a href="https://mastodon.social/@blogdiva" title="blogdiva@mastodon.social"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/143118-48-20230703095629.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="your auntifa liza 🇵🇷  🦛 🦦" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">your auntifa liza 🇵🇷  🦛 🦦</a></section><article><p>so 3 courts + US Copyright Office say you cannot copyright nor patent anything made primarily with LLMs because automata aren't human.</p><p><a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/SCOTUS" rel="tag">#SCOTUS</a> won't review these rules because copyright is meant to protect human creations, not software or automata.</p><p>this may mean <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/AWSlop" rel="tag">#AWSlop</a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/Microslop" rel="tag">#Microslop</a> are “de-copyrighting” &amp; “de-patenting” their own proprietary software as they let automata “code” 🧐</p><p>❝ AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted after Supreme Court declines to review the rule<br><a href="https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright" rel="nofollow">https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright</a></p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/6201436#notice-12221462">In conversation</a><time datetime="2026-03-03T06:52:05+09:00" title="Tuesday, 03-Mar-2026 06:52:05 JST">about 6 months ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://mastodon.social/@blogdiva/116161580735271469" rel="external" title="Sent from mastodon.social via ActivityPub">mastodon.social</a></span></span><a href="https://mastodon.social/@blogdiva/116161580735271469">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><article><header><div>Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: platform.theverge.com</div><h5><a href="https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright">AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted after Supreme Court declines to review the rule</a></h5><div> from <span>Emma Roth</span></div></header><div>A lower court previously said that “human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.”</div><footer></footer></article></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
your auntifa liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦 (blogdiva@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 03-Mar-2026 06:52:05 JST your auntifa liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦
so 3 courts + US Copyright Office say you cannot copyright nor patent anything made primarily with LLMs because automata aren't human.
#SCOTUS won't review these rules because copyright is meant to protect human creations, not software or automata.
this may mean #AWSlop #Microslop are “de-copyrighting” & “de-patenting” their own proprietary software as they let automata “code” 🧐
❝ AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted after Supreme Court declines to review the rule
https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright
In conversationabout 6 months ago from mastodon.socialpermalink
Attachments
1. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: platform.theverge.com
  AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted after Supreme Court declines to review the rule
  from Emma Roth
  A lower court previously said that “human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.”

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice