[dwohnitmok]

"All translations in this collection are © Scott Weisman. All rights reserved, except as granted by the license below."

Does copyright actually belong to Scott Weisman if all the words are outputs of LLMs? Is there any relevant case law here? I'm very curious about whether LLM outputs are copyrightable by the LLM user (I'm guessing potentially it varies throughout the world).

[therealpygon]

Solely the direct output of an LLM? Not in the US, no, according to the copyright office. Can a human edited and corrected text in which a human adds authorship (corrections, style, diction, editing, composition etc) to LLM output? Yes. Though simply making singular mechanical edits/corrections wouldn’t meet that bar; this seems like more than that.

An original human-authored translation is a derivative work that can hold copyright, but it is the human-authored parts that give it protection.

No amount of human authored pipelines that are automated (no human input) would give it this status as that is not human authorship (the pipeline itself can be however). The prompts for the LLM can also be copyright (again…human authorship), however they would be difficult to enforce since the direct output can’t be copyrighted.

[sweisman]

Yes. The rules vary worldwide. Do your own research. I did, before asserting copyright.