Originally Posted by Mike Halloran
Copyright can only apply to work created by humans. Period.
I'm guessing here at the root of that. I imagine that the copyright must be made by the creator and the creator must be human.
Obviously that means that work created by AI would not be allowed, but also neither would work created by animals, e.g., other great apes or elephants. That would also mean/imply that the guardian of the animal cannot obtain copyright. That all seems logical and reasonable, I just hadn't previously considered it.

Originally Posted by Mike Halloran
If a work cannot be copyrighted, it cannot be owned and money cannot be charged for it which means that money cannot be raised for it (in the movie industry, by Producers).
That's obviously an interesting challenge in view of the amount of graphics rendering that's now being done (allegedly, at least) using "AI". I guess the lines are between creation by AI and implementation by AI, much as, for example, a watercolourist can get effects by wet-on-wet painting, over which they have only outline control.

Yes, interesting.

Jazz relative beginner, starting at a much older age than was helpful.
AVL:MXE Linux; Windows 11
BIAB2025 Audiophile, a bunch of other software.
Kawai MP6, Ui24R, Focusrite Saffire Pro40 and Scarletts
.