[ffsm8]

At least for art there is already precedent in US courts with someone trying to copyright an image generated by midjourney and it getting revoked in 22, because ai generated art cannot be copyrighted.

for code it hasn't been challenged yet, but I find it doubtful they'd decide differently there

[whs]

I was reading Doe 1 v. GitHub for my paper. The case involves open source developers suing Github Copilot which were trained on, and generating open source code including code with MIT and AGPL license.

So far, the judge believe that training models on open source code is not a license violation as the code is public for anyone to read, but by "distribution or redistribution" (I assume, of the model's outputs?) it is still up for the court's decision whether that violate the terms of the license, among other laws.

The case is currently moved to Ninth Circuit without a decision in the district court, as there are other similar cases (such as Authors Guild's) and they wanted that the courts would offer a consistent rules. I believe one of the big delay in the case is in damages, which I think the plaintiff tried to ask for details of Microsoft's valuation of GitHub when it was acquired, as GitHub's biggest asset is the Git repositories and may provide a monetary value of how much each project is worth. Microsoft is trying to stall and not reveal this.

[kopecs]

Assuming you're referring to Thaler v. Perlmutter, Thaler claimed to the copyright office that the image at issue was "autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine". So the question of "if you claim the LLM did it itself" is settled (shocker, cf. Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418), but that definitely did not settle "_I_ used the LLM to do it".

[ffsm8]

Tbf, IANAL and was only repeating what journalists wrote back then. Ultimately, I have no deeper knowledge of the laws in question and thus don't have a qualified opinion on the matter.