|
|
|
|
|
|
by panny
17 days ago
|
|
|
>I don't know where you get this idea. I got the idea by reading the law, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922 For example, the copyright is valid for X years after the author's death. The copyright transfers to the author's "widow or widower" or "surviving children or grandchildren". Does AI die? Who is the AI's widow? Who is the AI's children and grandchildren? Oh, yeah, you're just wrong. The law explicity states that copyright belongs to HUMAN authors. Not AI. And courts have repeatedly ruled AI generated work cannot be copyrighted. You're the one who seems a little confused. |
|
|
No, I'm not confused. Go actually read your own link before you get condescending with me:
> Assuming that copyrightable works require a human author, works created by humans with the assistance of generative AI might be entitled to copyright protection depending on the nature of human involvement in the creative process.
The only settled legal finding is that copyright must be assigned to human beings.
The guidance of the Copyright Registration Office is not legally binding, which is where I think you may be confused. You do not need to register copyrights because they exist intrinsically when you create works.
If push comes to shove, you prove this in civil court to sue someone. They can argue a fair use defense. For example, training LLMs on copyrighted text has been repeatedly ruled fair use, as a transformative work.
The law is quite clear that how a work was created does not matter for copyright. All that matters is whether or not a thing qualifies as an original work of authorship. The boundaries of what AI-generated work can be copyrighted will be tested in court in the coming years.