This is the best summary I could come up with:

United States District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled on Friday that AI-generated artwork can’t be copyrighted, as noted by The Hollywood Reporter.

To contrast, Judge Howell noted a case in which a woman compiled a book from notebooks she’d filled with “words she believed were dictated to her” by a supernatural “voice” was worthy of copyright.

Judge Howell did, however, acknowledge that humanity is “approaching new frontiers in copyright,” where artists will use AI as a tool to create new work.

She wrote that this would create “challenging questions regarding how much human input is necessary” to copyright AI-created art, noting that AI models are often trained on pre-existing work.

His attorney, Ryan Abbot of Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP, said, “We respectfully disagree with the court’s interpretation of the Copyright Act,” according to Bloomberg Law, which also reported a US Copyright Office statement saying it believed the court’s decision was the right one.

Sarah Silverman and two other authors filed suit against OpenAI and Meta earlier this year over their models’ data scraping practices, for instance, while another lawsuit by programmer and lawyer Matthew Butterick alleges that data scraping by Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI amounted to software piracy.

The original article contains 386 words, the summary contains 201 words. Saved 48%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
- How can you copywrite something that you copied? I'll wait for an answer.
I wonder what this will mean in the medical field. They are using AI to find new proteins and medicines that work for various diseases.

Does this mean that the information the AI’s create and find in this way are public domain?