What? Wake up! Thank you! With Sarah Invinny!

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!

Alice at 973.

This may very well change some stuff in that entire struggle,

because on Friday, a U.S. District Judge, and this is just one stop on the legal train,

a District Judge ruled you can only copyright works created by humans and not AI,

which I think means that if it's known that an AI wrote or created something,

the studio or the people who were making whatever movie would not own the rights to, like there would

be some fuzzy lines, which I'm sure studios want to 100,000% own every single thing that they

have committed to film, etc. So this may play into this whole strike thing, a guy by the name of

Stephen Thaler, or something like that. Hello, Stephen. Yes, sued because he was denied a copyright

on a piece of artwork that was, quote, autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a

machine. The judge said, no, human involvement in an ultimate creative control over the work at

issue is key to it being bound by copyright laws. Like if there's no human, just because you own

the computer doesn't make the thing that the computer did yours. And then what about the computer,

now can the computer sue you? Because it came up with the, like it just opens up such a can of

worms. He's like, no, a human created it or a human didn't create it. And so that's step one on

what I'm sure will be a very long journey because people will want to copyright what their AI has come

up with. I mean, technology. I'm just sitting here thinking like, okay, so what's next? The

computer says, you know, Frank put my shoes on. We're storming the courthouse. Like, come on.

Right. This is so not a world I want to be in. I don't want to be in a world where

welcome to the world. You don't want to be in computer are demanding their share for their art.

...