By Cory Doctorow (GPG 0xBF3D9110957E5F4C) @doctorow.pluralistic.net · 14/05/2026* For creative workers, the answer to these new would-be tech bosses isn't asserting a new right that will be expropriated by the old media bosses who've been ripping us off forever. 20/ 1132
By Cory Doctorow (GPG 0xBF3D9110957E5F4C) @doctorow.pluralistic.net · 14/05/2026Our salvation lies in leaning into the US Copyright Office's interpretation that holds that AI-generated works *can't* be copyrighted, because copyright is only for human creations. 21/ 2244
By Cory Doctorow (GPG 0xBF3D9110957E5F4C) @doctorow.pluralistic.net · 14/05/2026That means that the only way our bosses can get a copyright over the things they want to sell is to *pay us to make them*: pluralistic.net/2026/03/03/i... 22/pluralistic.netPluralistic: Supreme Court saves artists from AI (03 Mar 2026) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow 1171
MathiasTCK.bsky.social @mathiastck.bsky.social · 13/08/2026I been thinking about this point a lot. Wouldn't even a minimal amount of human input, maybe text over the AI output, result in something that can be copyrighted? Maybe a human does a pallete swap, or minimal photoshoping or compositing. 000
