The title of the article is kind of is misleading. AI work can be copyrighted, as long as there is enough human involvement. In this specific case, it was the deliberate lack of human interaction that caused the copyright office to make its decision. If something was created by AI with enough human involvement, the Copyright Office would have no problem issuing copyright. Also, this case had the programmer attempting to copyright the piece as a work for hire and specifically applied to create a precedent for AI to be granted copyright.
There is absolutely nothing stopping someone from creating art with AI and claiming it as their own work.
So, it's not that AI work can't be copyrighted, it's that it can't actually hold the copyright. ANd honestly, that makes sense. I mean, when does AI die? When it's a new version? When it's updated? Or does it live on forever? And if it lives on forever, does that mean the copyright is eternal as well? If the courts wouldn't grant a monkey copyright ownership (and the monkey can die), no way they'll grant a computer program AI. Although, I doubt the applicant will give up anytime soon. He appears to be on a mission and probably is convinced that this is a SCOTUS level case. It's not and I doubt they'd grant cert if it ever got that far.
