3 ms·

Because the “AI slop is uncopyrightable” people are misunderstanding court rulings like this. It’s not that AI output can’t by protected by IP, it’s that AI is

Because the “AI slop is uncopyrightable” people are misunderstanding court rulings like this. It’s not that AI output can’t by protected by IP, it’s that AI is not a person and so you can’t assign IP rights to it. You CAN assign IP rights to the human who did it (if they can show it’s non-trivial, like a haiku or photographer).

natebc 3mo ago
This is the bit in the copyright offices' report that i'm trying to square: >The Office concludes that, given current generally available technology, prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf#page=26 https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...
- Robotbeat 3mo ago
  In January 2025. It’s also not a court decision, effectively an executive branch directive.
  - otterley 3mo ago
    The Copyright Office hasn’t changed its analysis, and courts will likely defer to it when they’re asked to settle a dispute about it.