2 ms·

Could be, but unfortunately (3) can generate the code but it is not copyrightable (Thaler v. Perlmutter)

• sidewndr46 29d ago
  No, that isn't what that case ruled at all. It ruled that the program generating the code cannot be the author.
  • em-bee 29d ago
    interesting interpretation. most other articles on the topic have a different interpretation. if the AI can not be the author, then who can? is writing the prompt enough to establish being the creator? i think we need a few more cases to get an answer to that.
    • Joel_Mckay 29d ago
      A company does NOT have rights to copy/mimic other works without legal license outside fair use like satire. https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20260414-the-monkey-selfie-that-predicted-the-ai-age https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20260414-the-monkey-sel... The owner of the Camera in this case lost copyright ownership claim, as did the rights-group representing the monkey. =3
    • codedokode 29d ago
      Clicking a button is enough to become an "author" of the photo, and writing a prompt requires more skill.
      • atakan_gurkan 29d ago
        Obviously, taking a photo requires much more than clicking a button. Even if you simply pointed and shot, the timing can be special. Copyright requires some creativity, if the creation process is completely mechanical you may not be able to copyright the end result.