5 ms·

I don't think this is the correct interpretation. I think they mean that if you make something without AI and then modify that with AI, that's covered. Likewise

by elil17 7mo ago

I don't think this is the correct interpretation. I think they mean that if you make something without AI and then modify that with AI, that's covered. Likewise, if you start from an AI output and modify it, that's covered. But the pure output of a generative model cannot be copyrighted, regardless of how complex the prompt is (note that the prompt itself could be copyrighted).

thepasch 7mo ago
> But the pure output of a generative model cannot be copyrighted, regardless of how complex the prompt is If that’s how the court interpreted it, then the software industry is hosed, since that’d mean none of the generated code running in production right now is under any sort of copyright or otherwise protection, lol.
- circuit10 7mo ago
  I doubt that much software is entirely AI-generated with no human review or testing, it’s probably more like integrating some public domain snippets you found online into your code (which doesn’t invalidate copyright on the rest of it, or the way it’s put together) or having some files auto-generated by a script (like a C header containing a lookup table for a simple mathematical function, the table isn’t copyrightable itself maybe but the software as a whole still is)
  - AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
    Never mind that. If a deterministic machine transformation from a copyrightable prompt results in an uncopyrightable image, what do you think a compiler is doing to source code?
    - compsciphd 7mo ago
      AI is not specifically not deterministic from the enduser's perspective. they throw randomness into it and hence why an exact prompt wont produce the same exact result. a compiler on the other hand is generally pretty deterministic. The non determinism that we see in output is usually non determinism (such as generated dates) in the code that it consumes.
      - AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
        If your argument is that compiler output is more deterministic than image generators, how does that help?
        compsciphd 7mo ago
        because they are just translating code (that everyone agrees is copyrightable) in a deterministic manner into another medium. I'm not saying AI art should or shouldn't be copyrightable. One can argue the inputs into the AI generator are copyrightable, but if the output isn't deterministic translation of the input, its a different argument.
        AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
        The original argument was that AI works wouldn't be copyrightable because they are deterministic, i.e. are just an algorithmic transformation lacking in creativity.
        compsciphd 7mo ago
        that doesn't seem to be the argument, see top comment (As of now) here "The courts just take issue with him naming his AI system as the sole author and himself as the copyright owner." you can't claim a non human as the "author" and claim the material is copyrightable. the "author" (not the AI) was trying to make a legal point/hack and the courts shot him down.
  - freejazz 7mo ago
    > human review or testing Review and testing do not confer a copyright the work reviewed or tested
    - circuit10 7mo ago
      I guess I was thinking more when it involves rewriting large parts of it because they don't work
      - freejazz 7mo ago
        That would be authorship, no?
        circuit10 7mo ago
        It sounds like they might be under the impression that having any AI-generated output in the code even if parts are human authored would invalidate the copyright, which isn’t true
- cadamsdotcom 7mo ago
  “I can stop on an ant, and I can stomp on a flower, so look out, elephants”
- JeremyNT 7mo ago
  I'm not sure this is really true, since copyright applies to distribution. If you have a substantial amount of backend code (as with most SaaS projects) you're never actually distributing the code, and copyright is never at play. Computer generated artifacts are already in this boat and are protected by virtue of being trade secrets not by copyright. This could maybe be true of shipping javascript to the browser, which presumably is not going to qualify as a trande secret, but I don't think that's where most companies derive value.
  - freejazz 7mo ago
    >I'm not sure this is really true, since copyright applies to distribution. Do you mean that a work has to be published prior to registration? What do you mean by "copyright applies to distribution"?
    - JeremyNT 7mo ago
      The idea of copyright is to prohibit unauthorized use and reproduction, but none of this actually happens with a proprietary software SaaS backend. You don't actually give anybody the code - they connect to the service. Access to the service is already governed by computer access laws, which don't depend on copyright. And if you never intentionally distributed your code outside of your org, you can call it a trade secret and nobody else has any legitimate right to access it - whether or not it is copyrightable. There are other things that aren't copyrightable that are trade secrets already. This would be true of any kind of automated data collection for example. You couldn't copyright it but you can call it a trade secret. And for any of that stuff, if you want to share it and limit distribution, you just have whoever wants access explicitly agree to be bound by contract law.
      - freejazz 7mo ago
        >The idea of copyright is to prohibit unauthorized use and reproduction, but none of this actually happens with a proprietary software SaaS backend. You don't actually give anybody the code - they connect to the service. The point isn't that you have to give it to people, but okay? >Access to the service is already governed by computer access laws, which don't depend on copyright Yeah, copyright doesn't control everything, and? >There are other things that aren't copyrightable that are trade secrets already. This would be true of any kind of automated data collection for example. You couldn't copyright it but you can call it a trade secret. Okay? >And for any of that stuff, if you want to share it and limit distribution, you just have whoever wants access explicitly agree to be bound by contract law. Your point being? You're just rambling assumptions about copyright and other things, which don't even track the actual law.
- freejazz 7mo ago
  >If that’s how the court interpreted it, then the software industry is hosed, since that’d mean none of the generated code running in production right now is under any sort of copyright or otherwise protection, lol. Correct, the jurisprudence there hasn't changed.
vunderba 7mo ago
This is how I understood the original decision a while back - that there had to be some additional element of human involvement post-"gen", though to what extent is still a bit unclear to me. What's the threshold? Can the person just slap an LUT on an SDXL image in Photoshop and call it a day?
quickthrowman 7mo ago
What constitutes a modification? Here’s a reverse Sorities Paradox situation. Let’s say I use an AI prompt to generate an image with 24-bit color, and then I manually change the RGB value of a single pixel from (255,255,255) to (254,255,255). Does that constitute a modification and would then allow the image to be copyrighted? If not, where is the line?

by elil17 7mo ago

thepasch 7mo ago

> But the pure output of a generative model cannot be copyrighted, regardless of how complex the prompt is If that’s how the court interpreted it, then the software industry is hosed, since that’d mean none of the generated code running in production right now is under any sort of copyright or otherwise protection, lol.

circuit10 7mo ago
I doubt that much software is entirely AI-generated with no human review or testing, it’s probably more like integrating some public domain snippets you found online into your code (which doesn’t invalidate copyright on the rest of it, or the way it’s put together) or having some files auto-generated by a script (like a C header containing a lookup table for a simple mathematical function, the table isn’t copyrightable itself maybe but the software as a whole still is)
- AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
  Never mind that. If a deterministic machine transformation from a copyrightable prompt results in an uncopyrightable image, what do you think a compiler is doing to source code?
  - compsciphd 7mo ago
    AI is not specifically not deterministic from the enduser's perspective. they throw randomness into it and hence why an exact prompt wont produce the same exact result. a compiler on the other hand is generally pretty deterministic. The non determinism that we see in output is usually non determinism (such as generated dates) in the code that it consumes.
    - AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
      If your argument is that compiler output is more deterministic than image generators, how does that help?
      - compsciphd 7mo ago
        because they are just translating code (that everyone agrees is copyrightable) in a deterministic manner into another medium. I'm not saying AI art should or shouldn't be copyrightable. One can argue the inputs into the AI generator are copyrightable, but if the output isn't deterministic translation of the input, its a different argument.
        AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
        The original argument was that AI works wouldn't be copyrightable because they are deterministic, i.e. are just an algorithmic transformation lacking in creativity.
        compsciphd 7mo ago
        that doesn't seem to be the argument, see top comment (As of now) here "The courts just take issue with him naming his AI system as the sole author and himself as the copyright owner." you can't claim a non human as the "author" and claim the material is copyrightable. the "author" (not the AI) was trying to make a legal point/hack and the courts shot him down.
- freejazz 7mo ago
  > human review or testing Review and testing do not confer a copyright the work reviewed or tested
  - circuit10 7mo ago
    I guess I was thinking more when it involves rewriting large parts of it because they don't work
    - freejazz 7mo ago
      That would be authorship, no?
      - circuit10 7mo ago
        It sounds like they might be under the impression that having any AI-generated output in the code even if parts are human authored would invalidate the copyright, which isn’t true
cadamsdotcom 7mo ago
“I can stop on an ant, and I can stomp on a flower, so look out, elephants”
JeremyNT 7mo ago
I'm not sure this is really true, since copyright applies to distribution. If you have a substantial amount of backend code (as with most SaaS projects) you're never actually distributing the code, and copyright is never at play. Computer generated artifacts are already in this boat and are protected by virtue of being trade secrets not by copyright. This could maybe be true of shipping javascript to the browser, which presumably is not going to qualify as a trande secret, but I don't think that's where most companies derive value.
- freejazz 7mo ago
  >I'm not sure this is really true, since copyright applies to distribution. Do you mean that a work has to be published prior to registration? What do you mean by "copyright applies to distribution"?
  - JeremyNT 7mo ago
    The idea of copyright is to prohibit unauthorized use and reproduction, but none of this actually happens with a proprietary software SaaS backend. You don't actually give anybody the code - they connect to the service. Access to the service is already governed by computer access laws, which don't depend on copyright. And if you never intentionally distributed your code outside of your org, you can call it a trade secret and nobody else has any legitimate right to access it - whether or not it is copyrightable. There are other things that aren't copyrightable that are trade secrets already. This would be true of any kind of automated data collection for example. You couldn't copyright it but you can call it a trade secret. And for any of that stuff, if you want to share it and limit distribution, you just have whoever wants access explicitly agree to be bound by contract law.
    - freejazz 7mo ago
      >The idea of copyright is to prohibit unauthorized use and reproduction, but none of this actually happens with a proprietary software SaaS backend. You don't actually give anybody the code - they connect to the service. The point isn't that you have to give it to people, but okay? >Access to the service is already governed by computer access laws, which don't depend on copyright Yeah, copyright doesn't control everything, and? >There are other things that aren't copyrightable that are trade secrets already. This would be true of any kind of automated data collection for example. You couldn't copyright it but you can call it a trade secret. Okay? >And for any of that stuff, if you want to share it and limit distribution, you just have whoever wants access explicitly agree to be bound by contract law. Your point being? You're just rambling assumptions about copyright and other things, which don't even track the actual law.
freejazz 7mo ago
>If that’s how the court interpreted it, then the software industry is hosed, since that’d mean none of the generated code running in production right now is under any sort of copyright or otherwise protection, lol. Correct, the jurisprudence there hasn't changed.

vunderba 7mo ago

This is how I understood the original decision a while back - that there had to be some additional element of human involvement post-"gen", though to what extent is still a bit unclear to me. What's the threshold? Can the person just slap an LUT on an SDXL image in Photoshop and call it a day?

quickthrowman 7mo ago

What constitutes a modification? Here’s a reverse Sorities Paradox situation. Let’s say I use an AI prompt to generate an image with 24-bit color, and then I manually change the RGB value of a single pixel from (255,255,255) to (254,255,255). Does that constitute a modification and would then allow the image to be copyrighted? If not, where is the line?