[graemep]

Yes, provided you can separate the two (e.g. a book and illustrations in one case). AFAIK the courts have still not ruled on what happens when AI and human contributions cannot be separated etc.

It varies a lot in other countries, but in most (if not all) an AI cannot hold a copyright.

[kube-system]

AI isn't a legal entity that can do anything, let alone hold a copyright. It is an inanimate box of numbers.

The only two things that can transact with any legal system in any way are humans and groups of humans.

[krapp]

That should be obvious but unfortunately lots of people believe (or have a vested interest in pretending to believe) LLMs are living, thinking, sentient entities and that belief is going to influence the politics and legislation around AI to some unknown degree.

[kube-system]

Hearing otherwise intelligent people anthropomorphize AI in legal arguments makes me realize why lawyers advise everyone just to shut their mouths and ask a lawyer.

[graemep]

But a human can hold the copyright on the output of an AI - but the requirements for that are not clear in the US yet. They are clear in the UK but the government is thinking of changing the law.

[kube-system]

A human can hold the copyright for anything for which they've contributed the requisite level of authorship and creativity. There are no tooling requirements or prohibitions.