> There have been copyright office rulings saying that ML model output is not copyrightable Source? If you're referring to Thaler v. Perlmutter, I would argue

> There have been copyright office rulings saying that ML model output is not copyrightable Source? If you're referring to Thaler v. Perlmutter, I would argue that is an incorrect assessment. > The court held that the Copyright Act requires all eligible works to be authored by a human being. Since Dr. Thaler listed the Creativity Machine, a non-human entity, as the sole author, the application was correctly denied. The court did not address the argument that the Constitution requires human authorship, nor did it consider Dr. Thaler's claim that he is the author by virtue of creating and using the Creativity Machine, as this argument was waived before the agency. If someone had instead argued that they themselves were the author by means of instructing an LLM to generate the output based on a prompt they made up, plus the influence of prior art (the pretrained data), which you could also argue is not only what he probably did anyway (but argued it poorly), but in a way is also how humans make art themselves... that would be a much more interesting decision IMO.