[natebc]

> Your AI slop is effectively public domain.

I haven't been able to square this belief (This is what i believe too.) with what I perceive as so, so many people making projects, putting them on github and slapping an MIT/GPL license on them.

If IP rights can't be applied to generated code then how are they able to apply a such a license to them?

I've asked this before and the response was along the lines of people thinking their multiple prompting amounted to human creative process and therefore it was covered but ... how? Any lawyers around that can ELI5 it for us? Maybe links to a lawyer somewhere who did?

[Robotbeat]

Because the “AI slop is uncopyrightable” people are misunderstanding court rulings like this. It’s not that AI output can’t by protected by IP, it’s that AI is not a person and so you can’t assign IP rights to it. You CAN assign IP rights to the human who did it (if they can show it’s non-trivial, like a haiku or photographer).

[natebc]

This is the bit in the copyright offices' report that i'm trying to square:

>The Office concludes that, given current generally available technology, prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output.

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

[Robotbeat]

In January 2025. It’s also not a court decision, effectively an executive branch directive.

[otterley]

The Copyright Office hasn’t changed its analysis, and courts will likely defer to it when they’re asked to settle a dispute about it.

[rolph]

a person publishing as if a AI is the creator is publishing under a pseudonym.

AI has all the IP rights of a pen, pencil, chalk, or crayon.