With speech bubble:
I made these initially for my personal use, but now I'm curious to see what you will make out of them.
Here are my own creations. All done with manual editing via GIMP:
(Trans Rights)
(Esperanto)
(Pakistan)
(Soviet Union) (Note that I'm not a USSR supporter, I made this one for shits and giggles)
(Anarcho-Communism)
(Nonbinary)
(Sapphic)
Made using Pony Diffusion V6 XL, a Shane Glines LoRA, and quite some inpainting and manual editing.
There has been a ruling issued by a judge:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/21/arts/design/copyright-ai-artwork.html
https://cdn.patentlyo.com/media/2023/08/THALER-v.-PERLMUTTER-et-al-Docket-No.-1_22-cv-01564-D.D.C.-Jun-02-2022-Court-Docket-1.pdf
And official statements from the copyright office:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/us-copyright-office-withdraws-copyright-for-ai-generated-comic-artwork/
They pretty much said what I said:
Read that again.
He tried to get copyright for a computer as the author. Copyright is something only humans can hold. This is something entirely different.
Read the actual decision:
The decision was that the work was not copyrightable in the first place because it was made without human involvement.
No misinformation here.
The ruling in Thaler v. Perlmutter is about something else entirely. He tried to argue that the AI itself was the author and that copyright should pass to him as he hired it.
It doesn’t matter what he argued. What matters is the judge’s decision, and that was about whether AI generated material is copyrightable in the first place. The judge agreed on a summary judgement based on the Copyright Office’s claims, not the plaintiff’s claims. That is legal precedent.
Even the article you just linked to bears the headline:
It even goes on to say:
That isn't an AI ruling though. That just upholds the existing precedent that non-humans can't hold copyright.
If you refuse to read the ruling, then I don’t know why you’re even arguing.
This has nothing to do with the guidance we are talking about.
A judge’s ruling is not guidance, it’s precedent.
This precedent has nothing to the guidance you were referring to in your first message.
If you refuse to read the ruling, then I don’t know why you’re even arguing.
I've explained it to you enough times. I'm done. Don't message me again.
If you refuse to read the ruling, then I don’t know why you’re even arguing.