3 ms·
A common misunderstanding AFAIK. It is true that Claude, not being a person, can't be assigned a copyright by itself, but a person that interacts with Claude ge
by lifthrasiir 7mo ago
A common misunderstanding AFAIK. It is true that Claude, not being a person, can't be assigned a copyright by itself, but a person that interacts with Claude generally can. The famous monkey selfie case [1] was different mainly because the human "photographer" had absolutely no role in the creation of work. Most LLM uses don't fall into such ambiguity.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
- mhitza 7mo agoI've heard and read it from various sources already that output isn't copyrightable, and hinted as such recently in a comment. Now I've went to look up some sources. > Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements. > Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. PDF https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...