> That definition would apply to almost anything software produces Not really. The reason software can be copyrighted at all is because the actual code (and re

> That definition would apply to almost anything software produces Not really. The reason software can be copyrighted at all is because the actual code (and resulting object code) is creative. Courts have named this threshold the "Structure, sequence and organization" of the work. ML models don't follow any creative SSO the way actual code does. > Also the output of ML seems to belong to whoever pressed the generate button atm. The output, it seems to me, is uncopyrightable. Copyright only cares about who provides the creativity for the work at issue, not who put in the effort to make it happen. You may own the copyright to your prompt, but the result is generated entirely by the AI and thus lacks human autorship.