3 ms·
This is not necessarily true. While no court has explicitly come out and said that copyright does not apply to AI-generated works of authorship, the US copyrigh
by ethin 2mo ago
This is not necessarily true. While no court has explicitly come out and said that copyright does not apply to AI-generated works of authorship, the US copyright office has[0]:
> Based on an analysis of copyright law and policy, informed by the many thoughtful comments in response to our NOI, the Office makes the following conclusions and recommendations:
> • Questions of copyrightability and AI can be resolved pursuant to existing law, without the need for legislative change.
> • The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output.
> • Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author, even if the work also includes AI-generated material.
> • 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.
> • Based on the functioning of current generally available technology, prompts do not alone provide sufficient control.
> • Human authors are entitled to copyright in their works of authorship that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs, as well as the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs, or creative modifications of the outputs.
> • The case has not been made for additional copyright or sui generis protection for AI-generated content.
> The Office will continue to monitor technological and legal developments to determine whether any of these conclusions should be revisited. It will also provide ongoing assistance to the public, including through additional registration guidance and an update to the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices.
Congress or the courts could, of course, override the stance of the copyright office, but I think it would be highly unusual for them to do so (particularly for something like this). It would however be a lot better if congress just stepped in and said no outright, but until then this will have to do.
[0]: https://www.copyright.gov/ai https://www.copyright.gov/ai
- henryfjordan 2mo agoThe courts are 100% going to have to interpret what is "sufficient human control" at some point.
- ethin 2mo agoSure, but I would be incredibly shocked if the courts overturned these conclusions. These kinds of determinations are within the remit of the USCO, so a court does not need to come out and say it if the USCO has already done so. Obviously, as I said it would be better if congress weighed in and solved this problem, given that the USCO is free to publish a new NOI to change it's practices/policies, but we all know that congress is too gridlocked atm for that to happen
- zmmmmm 2mo agoBut there are no conclusions. It literally says: > Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis It says a plain prompt is not enough but that is not the reality of real software development. People aren't one-shotting complex business apps. The vast majority of software development will trivially pass that bar and end up in the "requires case by case analysis".
- semiquaver 2mo agoI am trying really hard not to accuse you of not having read what you posted, because your conclusions are in strong tension with what it plainly says.
- SR2Z 2mo agoThe copyright office does not determine the standards for copyright. They are an advisory and notary organization. Only Congress and the courts do. Copyright exists from the moment a work is created, and does not need to be registered with the copyright office. The law isn't that complicated; if a work was created with a human being with intent, it's probably eligible for copyright protections. As long as you can convince a court that you did this, the tools you used are not relevant. The vast majority of LLM art falls in this bucket.
- what 2mo agoDo you own the copyright to a painting you commissioned or does the artist? You may have described what you wanted, but the creative work is the output of the artist. Same with an LLM.
- semiquaver 2mo agoThis would be a “work-for-hire,” thus not owned by the artist. As a matter of fact, the law does not even consider the artist to be the author of the work. So the point you thought you were making is actually quite backwards. > A copyrightable work is “made for hire” in two situations: > When it is created by an employee as part of the employee’s regular duties > When a certain type of work is created as a result of an express written agreement between the creator and a party specially ordering or commissioning it > When a work is a made for hire, the hiring or commissioning party is considered the author and the copyright owner. https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ30.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ30.pdf IANAL but I can imagine the courts bringing this aspect of the law coming into play if Congress continues to be cowardly and fails to pass clear legislation on this topic; courts often analogize to existing scenarios when existing law doesn’t cleanly cover a new one.
- what 2mo agoThanks ChatGPT, but you didn’t actually read the document you cited. Commissioning a painting doesn’t qualify as work for hire wrt to copyright.