As AI-generated artwork becomes more commonplace, it still won't be able to be copyrighted, according to US courts. On Monday, the US Supreme Court declined to hear a case about whether an artwork generated with the help of AI can be copyrighted. The refusal means that a lower court's decision to reject the copyright request will stand.

The case dates back to 2018 when Stephen Thaler applied for a copyright of an artwork called A Recent Entrance to Paradise. Unlike using ChatGPT or Midjourney, Thaler, a computer scientist, created an AI system that generated the artwork in question. However, the US Copyright Office rejected his application in 2022 on the grounds that it wasn't made by a human author. Thaler sought appeals at higher courts, but ultimately had to escalate the case to the Supreme Court after both a federal judge in Washington and the US Court of Appeals ruled against him.

With a refusal from the highest court in the US, it's unlikely Thaler's case can continue. The US Supreme Court could always hear a related case in the future, but Thaler's lawyers said, "even ⁠if it later overturns the Copyright Office’s test in another case, it will be too late," adding that the decision will have negatively impacted the creative industry during "critically important years." It's worth noting that Thaler also filed applications to the US Patent and Trademark Office for AI-generated inventions, which were rejected for similar reasons.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/the-supreme-court-doesnt-care-if-you-want-to-copyright-your-ai-generated-art-171849407.html?src=rss

©

© REUTERS / Reuters

Another major antitrust lawsuit has launched in the UK. This time its against Sony, which could be on the hook for almost £2 billion ($2.7 billion) for overcharging PlayStation users. 

A class action case for about 12.2 million users argues that Sony "occupies a dominant position in relation to the digital distribution of PlayStation games and in-game content and that it has been unfairly charging its UK customers too much for digital games and in-game content purchased through the PlayStation Store."

It argues that Sony "has a near monopoly" on add-on content and digital games through the PlayStation store, allowing it to set the prices and take a 30 percent commission.

The class action encompasses anyone in the UK who owned a PlayStation console and purchased digital games or made in-game purchases through the PlayStation store between August 19, 2016 and February 12, 2026. It's being run as an opt-out lawsuit, so anyone meeting the criteria can qualify without taking any action. If the lawsuit is successful then each person could receive about £162 ($217). 

Sony has argued that allowing downloads from third-party stores could bring security and privacy risks, according to the Financial Times. It further states that the digital sales commission makes up profits lost for selling their consoles with minimal profit. 

This lawsuit follows the success of a similar class action decided in October. The UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal found that Apple had been abusing its dominant market position and overcharging App Store users. In December, Apple filed an appeal against the £1.5 billion ($2 billion) fine. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/sony-faces-a-27-billion-antitrust-lawsuit-in-the-uk-114113889.html?src=rss

©

© Mat Smith for Engadget