News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containing AI-generated material. Parent comment

Re:U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containin... by ROTMetro on Friday March 17, 2023 @01:19AM (#35193448)
In that scenario the original artist is granted copyright and assigns it to the company. Another option would be for the artist to 'license' the work to the company and keep copyright ownership themselves. Since there is no original artist to be granted copyright then there is no one to assign it to the company so no copyright under current statute. I and others got so many downvotes here for pointing this out previously.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containin... by heavyset_go on Friday March 17, 2023 @01:41AM (#35193581)
> In that scenario the original artist is granted copyright and assigns it to the company.

Whoever paid you to create it is the copyright holder, the artist doesn't have to grant anything when commissioned to produce work for hire, as it's the employers'.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containin... by dragonwriter on Friday March 17, 2023 @01:30AM (#35193520)
> In that scenario the original artist is granted copyright and assigns it to the company.

Not if it meets the standards for a “work for hire”, then the employer is the copyright owner ab initio.

[ Parent | on HN ]