Link: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/02/us-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-dispute-over-copyrights-for-ai-generated-material.html

This is massive news. Means companies can't create defensible IP from any AI-generated work.

Interesting to know how far this extends to... movies, code?

[T]he AI-crafted visual ⁠art ‌at issue in the case was ineligible for copyright protection ⁠because it did not have a human creator.

I know some big money interest is going to fight and eventually overturn this, but goddamn it feels good to see it written down officially.

AI is not art.

Woah now. A lot of good artist are using AI tools now. Is it still art if they use AI to enhance or even create elements?

There is also an interesting parallel here with art forms that were considered disruptive in the past. I am thinking of photography and how upset painters were with their work being replaced by a machine.

https://medium.com/@elarson39/photography-was-historically-considered-arts-most-mortal-enemy-is-ai-69a2dc2f43ef

So is AI just the next photography? Is there no art in let's say a carefully crafted prompt. How is this different from a photographer stealing a painters business with a press of a button. Is this not even lazier than a well thought out prompt.

I don't pretend to have these answers, but it has got me thinking.