No. There is no real copyright protection for AI generated works because there is no "exclusivity" and only exclusive rights 17 U.S.C. § 106 are protected in U.S. Federal courts.

Tech companies embracing artificial intelligence to write their software code — and boasting about it — may be running into a gap in copyright protection: the more they rely on AI, the harder it may be to claim exclusive rights when that code is copied or leaked.

AI Gen advocates still to this day try to claim that AI Gen doesn't require copyrighted works - and yet some of the same group of AI Gen advocates are on reddit - AND they are using my own copyrighted character to be antagonistic toward me! Lol.

Putting one's own © work through AI Gen results in an "author-less" derivative work that cannot have a "point of attachment of copyright" to any author!! This is why copyright owners should NOT be using AI Gen as it could be seen as an "overt act" to abandon copyright in the derivative work.

Relying on AI Gen to create a brand identity results in a weak or non-existent brand identity. A strong brand identity is built on trust, emotional connection, and strategic positioning. AI can generate a logo, but it results in a superficial brand that lacks significant legal protection.

Anthropic Races to Contain Leak of Code Behind Claude AI Agent (Sam Schechner) www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anth...

Lead Plaintiff really needs to add a violation of reproduction rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106 for initial downloading whilst ignoring NoAI tags- and also mention potential "market harm" to counter any fair use defense.

IMO, Disney - by using AI Gen Video - would have fully known that the resulting output would lack an author, and therefore would have deliberately committed such an author-less derivative work directly to the public domain! Lol!

Who knew?....Oh yeah, I knew. Now I remember. www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/dig...

New 18th March. UK Gov scraps exception to AI Training including "opt-out" criteria. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69ba69...

Yes! I take an AI gen image and "add human authorship to it" then technically I could register the "selection and arrangement" at USCO. E.g., Jason Allen cannot have © (Allen v Perlmutter) But I can (see image). It's worthless though as anyone else can do same. "Thin copyright" = no exclusivity.

Iron Sky - The saga continue. Latest from Baylis v. Valve Corp at 9th Circuit. Reply brief. TDLR Valve concede I created the work whilst unemployed. Comity is wrong governing law. The correct law is Berne Convention Implementation Act 1988 (BCIA). www.courtlistener.com/docket/71909...

Reply brief sent! This case was always going to end up at the Ninth Circuit eventually. This reply brief may be the most important document of the whole case and saga. As mention previously there is a lack of "subject matter jurisdiction" re: Finnish Ruling & 9th circuit should simply confirm that.

They say: - the government must not weaken copyright law, and should instead strengthen licensing, transparency & enforcement - the government should stop prioritising large multinational tech firms 3/5

US Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI-generated material By Blake Brittain. www.reuters.com/legal/govern...

AI models from OpenAI, Google, Anthropic and xAI can reproduce entire novels from memory. Researchers extracted 95.8% of Harry Potter from Claude nearly word for word. Gemini 2.5 Pro and Grok 3 didn't even require bypassing safeguards - they just kept writing. arxiv.org/pdf/2601.02671

How many times, in how many contexts, in how many ways am I going to have to say that this is what "AI" does— what it fundamentally *is*— before it sinks in? That all Bullshit engines do is statistically correlate training data & inputs via their weights to produce outputs you are likely to accept…

Theft was part of the plan from the get-go. Founders of AI companies decided collectively that copyright law didn't matter because they needed our data to feed their monster. They knew it would come out one day. The mindset of arrogance and disregard of law is baffling... and here we are.

The EU has spoken—loud & clear. 🙏🏼🔥🙏🏼 “Generative AI must not operate outside the rule of law. If copyrighted works are used to train AI systems, creators are entitled to transparency, legal certainty, & fair compensation. Innovation cannot come at the expense of copyright, both can & must coexist.”

some of my favorite snippets from newly released court docs in the Anthropic copyright book case. eye-opening stuff on Project Panama, their plan to "destructively scan all the books in the world" in order to train AI

The US Solicitor General advised the US Supreme Court not to take up a computer scientist’s petition to consider whether AI could be an author under copyright law.

Are AI's just 'learning' from your books? Four "prominent LLMs...reproduced lengthy excerpts from popular—and protected—works, with a stunning degree of accuracy.” https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-industry-recall-copyright-books via @futurism.com

Latest in Allen v. Perlmutter www.courtlistener.com/docket/69198...

And filed! Ninth Circuit here we go! I had some help with this which I may explain in the future in more detail (when they make the documentary!) but for now someone is very deserving of some pie. 😉 www.courtlistener.com/docket/71909...

The lawsuit is just the latest in a string of copyright-related legal complaints aimed at the AI industry.

🚨 The UK government just published a breakdown of the responses to its consultation on AI & copyright: - 95% of respondents want AI companies to pay for their training data (made up of 88% saying strengthen copyright law, & 7% saying leave it as is) 🧵 1/2

A landmark ruling and a reframed headline: “OpenAI lost a copyright case in Germany yesterday” To: “Victory for Content Producers.” “Judge Elke Schwager “if you want to build something and need components, then you purchase them. Do not use the property of others." #AI #Dataprivacy #writers ⬇️

Can't believe that this is happening. The US Court is powerless and Valve's Lawyers have completely wasted - not just my time - but the time of a US Federal Court with a "frivolous defense" that was dead on arrival. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been WASTED including US tax payer dollars!

Can't believe that this is happening. The US Court is powerless and Valve's Lawyers have completely wasted - not just my time - but the time of a US Federal Court with a "frivolous defense" that was dead on arrival. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been WASTED including US tax payer dollars!

(3)...Elokuva on julkaistu helmikuussa. (MAO302/18). www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIir...

I wonder if I can just write "Ooooof!" on my next reply brief & leave it as that. ALL of the Judges previous orders related to the question of authorship have to be VOIDED. The first thing the court needed was to determine "choice of law" which I tried to help with by mentioning it in my pleadings!

Valve essentially got a Federal Court Judge to apply Comity and Collateral estoppel - to a "Hollywood Reporter article" by the look of it! :)

:)

It's happening. ;) There is no argument Valve can have against the Finnish Rulings lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

@kortizart.bsky.social I've won. The Finnish cases had no "subject matter jurisdiction". They are all NULL & VOID. Still some paperwork to file but the US Judge's hands are tied and all his Orders based on those Finnish cases are NULL & VOID. Deus Ex Machina baby! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject...

A judgment from a court that did not have subject-matter jurisdiction is forever a nullity. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject...

ECtHR finds violation of right to property by State’s failure to enforce copyright. legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/copyright-bl...

Place of publication - The law is on my side. 🙂 Iron Sky was first published in Germany. It is NOT therefore a Finnish work. German copyright law applies - FACT. www.wipo.int/.../en/copyr...

Importance of Chain of Title www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp3Y...

Another filing in Baylis v Valve. It really is getting farcical.

If your business cannot prosper without breaking the law, then it is not a business. It is organized crime. Like those dependent on slavery, child labor, or wage theft, it should go out of business as soon as possible.

Iron Sky 3D artists cannot be deprived of their intellectual property. fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charte...

OpenAI claims companies must opt-out of having their copyrighted characters & content appear in Sora Legal experts say studios have grounds to sue: “They’re setting up this false bargain where they can do this unless you opt out. And if you don’t, it’s your fault. That’s not the way the law works"

I own the © to this video. But according to Valve there is a ruling in Finland that says unemployed 3D animators can't be authors of such videos because it's not possible for animators such as myself to have © in the work they create! Valve lack common sense. www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlsk...

Baylis v Valve (MSJ) . All filing briefs are now in. Valve still haven't grasped there is a "personal criteria" based on Nationality - even if an author is on an airplane flying over multiple counties drawing pictures etc. Copyright arises to them initially based on their own Nationality.

You are missing a far more obvious reason why AIGen can't have copyright. A prompt is a "transitory" (not fixed in the AI gen interface) "method of operation" for a software function. See Navitaire v Easyjet and Lotus v Borland. Also test yourself in Google Translate. The software works immediately.