[gruez]

>You have bought the text so you have the readright, but you do not the copyright.

You do however, have the right to make derivative works based on the contents of the book. You reading a physics textbook doesn't mean you can't write a blog post about gravity or whatever, and you reading harry potter doesn't mean you can't write a series of fantasy books involving a young wizard trying to fight an evil wizard.

[yencabulator]

Last I looked, machines are considered unable to create copyrightable content, so your attempt to compare that to LLMs might not work in court.

> The application was denied because, based on the applicant’s representations in the application, the examiner found that the work contained no human authorship. After a series of administrative appeals, the Office’s Review Board issued a final determination affirming that the work could not be registered because it was made “without any creative contribution from a human actor.”

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf

[gruez]

>Last I looked, machines are considered unable to create copyrightable content, so your attempt to compare that to LLMs might not work in court.

That just means whatever they produce can't be copyrighted, not that they can't produce derivative works. Courts have upheld the right for google to produce thumbnails of copyrighted works, even though the procedure for producing thumbnails is done by a computer and thus can't be copyrighted.