so 3 courts + US Copyright Office say you cannot copyright nor patent anything made primarily with LLMs because automata aren't human.
-
@blogdiva
Who the heck would want Microslop code???@BoloMKXXVIII @blogdiva so much stuff still only works on microslop windows. if windows was open source it would be so fucking cool actually because then there could be an actually good version of it for people to use.
-
so 3 courts + US Copyright Office say you cannot copyright nor patent anything made primarily with LLMs because automata aren't human.
#SCOTUS won't review these rules because copyright is meant to protect human creations, not software or automata.
this may mean #AWSlop #Microslop are “de-copyrighting” & “de-patenting” their own proprietary software as they let automata “code” 🧐
❝ AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted after Supreme Court declines to review the rule
https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright@blogdiva I'm ignorant in the language here. Does "decline to make a ruling" mean they don't want to step on anyone's toes, or they don't think there's a case?
Could this rear its head again later?
-
@blogdiva I'm ignorant in the language here. Does "decline to make a ruling" mean they don't want to step on anyone's toes, or they don't think there's a case?
Could this rear its head again later?
IANAL and haven't check directly with the SCOTUS archives, but my understanding is that it can be both. could be clarified if any of the justices included a comment in the decision (sometimes they stickem in the footnotes, which is why it’s always good to follow up with the OP)
-
@blogdiva please forgive me, it's been a day, am I reading this correctly that essentially, anything AI/LLM made is not copyrightable and thus we can do whatever the heck we want with it and companies can't do shit about it? And since it has zero value (because it cannot be copyrighted)...this will lead (hopefully) to it's collapse. Thus...all this is good news...right? Or am I missing something? Please let this be good news...
i have to read the decision closely, but as it has been reported anything created with automata (aka AIslop) has no creative value.
to SCOTUS, only humans have creativity. this is why animals cant get copyrights either. as defined by law, creativity is intrinsic to being human.
in the case of AIslop, they're treating it as just a tool.
imagine Microslop claiming copyright on your work cuz you used MSW or MSO?
hence the decision.
-
@geolaw not necessarily. am almost certain a paper just came out about how to reverse engineer a whole Gemini summary, to track down the sources plagiarized
-
The big tech companies have created the most inefficient and expensive public library known to man.
They’ve read that LLMs will happily reproduce an entire work of an author just basically copy pasting the book.
Should work wonders asking one of these videos services to completely replicate down to the pixel whatever film we want
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva It does... kinda. Go on youtube and search for an album that doesn't actually exist by an artist... it happened to me with james brown. I searched james brown full album and it happily gave me a james brown album with all the track names you would expect, a cover pic of james brown, and all the james brown songs, exact lyrics and music, just... not. It was super fucking creepy. Amazing how just changing his voice to an AI generated voice completely ruined it.
-
@blogdiva Those rulings would probably only apply to the LLM generated parts; any real software product would be a mix of human-designed and AI generated parts, so it would presumably still have copyright protection. Now it is possible that a software product that is entirely "vibe coded" isn't copyrightable in the US, but currently those products suck too badly to be worth stealing.
❝ any real software product would be a mix of human-designed and AI generated parts, so it would presumably still have copyright protection ❞
no, not necessarily.
IANAL but my impression is that they're extrapolating from measures used for determining plagiarism cases; along with case law involving FLOSS, the most famous the decades of Unix vs Linux battles.
again, this isn't my bread and butter but the techbros involved should know better. the proprietary claimants famously lost.
-
so 3 courts + US Copyright Office say you cannot copyright nor patent anything made primarily with LLMs because automata aren't human.
#SCOTUS won't review these rules because copyright is meant to protect human creations, not software or automata.
this may mean #AWSlop #Microslop are “de-copyrighting” & “de-patenting” their own proprietary software as they let automata “code” 🧐
❝ AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted after Supreme Court declines to review the rule
https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright@blogdiva Finally some good news!
-
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva It does... kinda. Go on youtube and search for an album that doesn't actually exist by an artist... it happened to me with james brown. I searched james brown full album and it happily gave me a james brown album with all the track names you would expect, a cover pic of james brown, and all the james brown songs, exact lyrics and music, just... not. It was super fucking creepy. Amazing how just changing his voice to an AI generated voice completely ruined it.
@Wyatt_H_Knott @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva if nothing else this is just so fucking disrespectful to the artists
-
so 3 courts + US Copyright Office say you cannot copyright nor patent anything made primarily with LLMs because automata aren't human.
#SCOTUS won't review these rules because copyright is meant to protect human creations, not software or automata.
this may mean #AWSlop #Microslop are “de-copyrighting” & “de-patenting” their own proprietary software as they let automata “code” 🧐
❝ AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted after Supreme Court declines to review the rule
https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright@blogdiva the bad news are: just because they loose copyright or patenent (which they even don't have in europe by definition), it does not mean that suddenly the source code appears to public
-
so 3 courts + US Copyright Office say you cannot copyright nor patent anything made primarily with LLMs because automata aren't human.
#SCOTUS won't review these rules because copyright is meant to protect human creations, not software or automata.
this may mean #AWSlop #Microslop are “de-copyrighting” & “de-patenting” their own proprietary software as they let automata “code” 🧐
❝ AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted after Supreme Court declines to review the rule
https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyrightThey said: Microsoft loves Open source
-
@blogdiva Those rulings would probably only apply to the LLM generated parts; any real software product would be a mix of human-designed and AI generated parts, so it would presumably still have copyright protection. Now it is possible that a software product that is entirely "vibe coded" isn't copyrightable in the US, but currently those products suck too badly to be worth stealing.
-
@blogdiva Those rulings would probably only apply to the LLM generated parts; any real software product would be a mix of human-designed and AI generated parts, so it would presumably still have copyright protection. Now it is possible that a software product that is entirely "vibe coded" isn't copyrightable in the US, but currently those products suck too badly to be worth stealing.
-
@elduvelle I've no problem & I'm quite certain my reply was to your sophomoric response to the OP.
@DrSaucy that doesn't explain what you didn't like in my answer, but ok
-
If an AI/LLM reverse engineers the Windows codebase, and publishes the results, is this a Copyright violation?
What if Copilot does this? Is it a contract violation?
Did Copilot sign a NDA?
@SpaceLifeForm @blogdiva well since these days MS seems to be updating the Windows codebase using vibe coding then none of it is copyright anyway.
-
so 3 courts + US Copyright Office say you cannot copyright nor patent anything made primarily with LLMs because automata aren't human.
#SCOTUS won't review these rules because copyright is meant to protect human creations, not software or automata.
this may mean #AWSlop #Microslop are “de-copyrighting” & “de-patenting” their own proprietary software as they let automata “code” 🧐
❝ AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted after Supreme Court declines to review the rule
https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright@blogdiva @baldur It's hard to make the distinction here
> The US federal circuit court similarly determined that AI systems can’t patent inventions because they aren’t human, which the US Patent Office reaffirmed in 2024 with new guidance, stating that while AI systems can’t be listed as inventors on a patent, people can still use AI-powered tools to develop them.
I wonder how judges are going to judge that… (I guess it's a bit the Ship of Theseus problem ?)
-
@blogdiva @baldur It's hard to make the distinction here
> The US federal circuit court similarly determined that AI systems can’t patent inventions because they aren’t human, which the US Patent Office reaffirmed in 2024 with new guidance, stating that while AI systems can’t be listed as inventors on a patent, people can still use AI-powered tools to develop them.
I wonder how judges are going to judge that… (I guess it's a bit the Ship of Theseus problem ?)
-
@javerous @blogdiva Considering the judges only come into it when there's a legal issue—something that leads to a challenge in court—they don't need to answer this question in the abstract but tackle it based on the evidence brought before them by the lawyers arguing the case.
So, things like emails, process documentation, marketing, etc. They don't need to address it as a philosophical question
-
hence the use of US, as in UNITED STATES
@blogdiva is it mansplaining or manregioning? why not both!?
-
Definitely, see my other answer here
https://neuromatch.social/@elduvelle/116161779140284723In the end I'd say the question is "who should benefit from the copyright", not whether the LLM's output is copyrightable or not, because I don't see why it wouldn't be. Obviously it's not going to be easy to figure it out, but in theory all those who contributed to the output (including in the training set) should be considered as contributors. The LLM itself, like a typewriter, is not a contributor.
@elduvelle @jaystephens
Your continuing not to see why LLM output can't be copyrightable is neither here nor there. It can't. The part written by the human is the prompt itself. You could copyright that, sure. It just isn't useful.If you could get a court to agree copyright went to all human contributors of the training data, then *nobody* could benefit from it, as nobody would have a right to make copies of it without *all* the contributors or their estates granting a license.
