Every story and comment from the Hacker News API, in a layout borrowed from 2001.
A comment on U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containing AI-generated material. Parent comment
> In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, a defendant accused of making
> unauthorized copies of a photograph argued that the expansion of copyright
> protection to photographs by Congress was unconstitutional because “a
> photograph is not a writing nor the production of an author” but is instead
> created by a camera.
> The Court disagreed, holding that there was “no doubt” the Constitution's
> Copyright Clause permitted photographs to be subject to copyright, “so far
> as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the
> author.”
> In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, a defendant accused of making
> unauthorized copies of a photograph argued that the expansion of copyright
> protection to photographs by Congress was unconstitutional because “a
> photograph is not a writing nor the production of an author” but is instead
> created by a camera.
> The Court disagreed, holding that there was “no doubt” the Constitution's
> Copyright Clause permitted photographs to be subject to copyright, “so far
> as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the
> author.”