5 ms·
I was under the impression that the US copyright office/various judges already determined that anything created 100% by AI is not copyrightable. A synthesizer
by Grombobulous 4mo ago
I was under the impression that the US copyright office/various judges already determined that anything created 100% by AI is not copyrightable.
A synthesizer is not AI.
- p-e-w 4mo agoNothing is “created 100% by AI” though, because AIs don’t create things without human instructions.
- oasisbob 4mo agoHow much instruction do you need though? What if I prompt Claude to go prompt Suno? What if the same chain happens internally at Suno? Easy to imagine the human input being very dilute and a small part overall.
- make3 4mo agoClaude is a computer program, so is Suno. Someone has to pay Anthropic & to run Claude. AI does not have special moral grounding in our society.
- oasisbob 4mo agoI wasn't speaking to morality, but copyright law, especially in the US, cares about the fixing of a creative act in a specific medium. Like a monkey at a camera, the automated output from an LLM does not automatically afford protection.
- tgv 4mo agoThe prompt is yours to copyright, the algorithm belongs to Google or Suno or whoever, but not the output. It is not your creation.
- thewebguyd 4mo agoThe US copyright office ruled that the instructions do not count. Prompt engineering does not constitute human authorship. Prompt is the command, but the machine determines the specific expressive elements of the output (according to the USCO). Raw LLM output is automatically public domain.
- thewebguyd 4mo agoMinor correction, but in the US it's not anything that's 100% by AI, it's LLM output itself is not copyrightable. Human elements injected into LLM output are. Raw LLM output lacks human authorship, and it was ruled cannot be registered for copyright protection. Raw LLM output is automatically public domain (which is also why its silly for Anthropic to be in such a tizzy about China using Claude's output, Claude's output is public domain). Only the parts of a work that are human authored can be registered for copyright. If a work was created with AI assistance, the parts that were purely AI generated cannot be registered. The US copyright office also ruled that prompt engineering does not count as human authorship. So all those people using Suno to generate AI slop music and flooding the streaming services, their output is almost certainly public domain.
- gruez 4mo ago>(which is also why its silly for Anthropic to be in such a tizzy about China using Claude's output, Claude's output is public domain). I don't see how it's any more weird than reddit/stackoverflow/linkedin trying to clamp down on AI scrapers, even though they don't own the copyright to the UGC that they're preventing the bots from accessing.
- thewebguyd 4mo agoThe difference is in licensing. Those platforms are protecting (or rather, monetizing) a database of human authored assets which those humans have given them a license to exploit. Anthropic (and others) are trying to protect a stream of uncopyrightable, public-domain machine outputs.
- gruez 4mo agoI don't see how that's relevant. They have a license to redistribute my comments, but that's the extent of their legal rights with respect to my work. They're not my agent or my publisher. Moreover I don't have any say in the matter. If I'm pro AI scraping, I can't tell them "yeah it's fine to scrape my comment, don't put up any captcha walls". Finally, what if I dedicate my comments to the public domain? Does that mean they're in the wrong to put up scraping walls?
- Freedumbs 4mo agoWhat's the technical distinction? Do you mean music that is composed by an LLM when referring to AI? How can one draw the line? It's like saying math doesn't count if the doctor used a calculator or your house isn't real because electricity was used to assemble it.