According to one recent article in Art Net News, the Paris based collector Nicolas Laugero-Lasserre acquired Le Comte de Belamy, which was created by artificial intelligence. The issue of AI created artwork isn’t academic. Copyright office “will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work.” The office further states that it will exclude works “produced by machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.” The question raised by the decision is whether computer generated art is copyrightable and, if so, whether the AI – or its programmer – would be the owner. Part of the reasoning of the court was simple. Unfortunately, Naruto couldn’t be reached for comment. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the suit because Naruto can’t own the copyright to the photos.

Slater and his publishers for copyright infringement. Naruto retained the services of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (“PETA”) to sue Mr. Whilst Gentleman’s Quarterly and other magazines sought to feature him in their publications, Naruto couldn’t be bothered. Naruto then picked up the camera and, harnessing his training at the British Museum School of Art and Design, began taking stunning photos of himself. David Slater, a British wildlife photographer, left his camera unattended. The story began on the island of Sulawesi, not Fantasy Island but close. The Indonesian monkey at the heart of the dispute is named “Naruto.” He is actually quite handsome, as you can see if you look up his profile shot – not on Linked In, of course. But who owns artificial intelligence (“AI”) created artwork? This entry addresses that issue.

The reason? Only humans can own a copyright under U.S.

It says that a monkey can’t own the copyright to his selfie. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”) is instructive. If your pet dog Hans takes a selfie, does he own the copyright? A recent decision by the U.S.

Naruto s1 vol1 v vol2