4 ms·
2) doesn't line up with the US court's current stance that only a human can hold copyright, and thus anything created by a not-human cannot have copyright appli
by luma 3y ago
2) doesn't line up with the US court's current stance that only a human can hold copyright, and thus anything created by a not-human cannot have copyright applied. This applies to animals, inanimate objects, and presumably, AI.
I have no idea how this impacts the encodability of the license from FB which may rely on things other than copyright, but as of right now, the output absolutely cannot be copyrighted.
- jrockway 3y agoThat's an extremely good point. The output of software is never copyrightable. What makes language models not software?
- danielbln 3y agoIsn't Photoshop software?
- pessimizer 3y agoPhotoshop's output has been completely guided (until recent additions) by a human who can hold a copyright. That being said, isn't a prompt guidance?
- mook 3y agoAdobe doesn't hold copyright on images produced using Photoshop. Assuming prompt guidance can be used to claim copyright (unclear, see https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/us-copyright-office-withdraws-copyright-for-ai-generated-comic-artwork/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/us-co... ), that copyright would presumably be held by the person doing the guidance and not the company that trained the AI.