| > Whether a work can be copyrighted will depend on unnamed circumstances including how the AI tool was used. The conclusion I draw from that is that "how the tool was used" is going to include "how much detail was specified" The Copyright Office's guidance the court cited said it would not. If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks
human authorship and the Office will not register it 26 For example, when an AI technology
receives solely a prompt 27 from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical
works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed
by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office’s understanding of the
generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative
control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material. Instead, these
prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist—they identify what the
prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are
implemented in its output.[1] And the Copyright Office rejected a claim 624 iterations of experiment and refining was authorship.[2] Another court could change this. > That's my opinion, as I pointed out in the next paragraph You said the next paragraph was your opinion in the next paragraph. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf [2] https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/... |