so 3 courts + US Copyright Office say you cannot copyright nor patent anything made primarily with LLMs because automata aren't human.
-
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 Does this mean all those AI-generated ads are not copyrightable?
Time to remix.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/coca-cola-causes-controversy-ai-made-ad-rcna180665
-
@blogdiva that's silly, it's like saying something written by a typewriter is not copyright-able because it was made by a machine.. The "AI" program was made by a human in the first place, it's just slightly more sophisticated..
@elduvelle @blogdiva a compiler is copyrighted, but the code generated by that compiler falls under the license of the compiled code, not the compiler's
-
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 okay with this!
-
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-copyrightBTW
as Google attempts to turn #Android phones proprietary, what with the way techbros have conspired to use embeddables as backdoors; should be interesting to do a full auditing of the hardware and software used in Android phones specifically manufactured for the USA market.
basically, techbros have hidden behind “trade secrets” and "security" to take control away from us.
i would assume auditing for what’s built with automata should render that proprietary part null.
-
@elduvelle @blogdiva if a typewriter were mashing up the writing from great novels written on other typewriters across time & space
@jaystephens
Right.. But a typewriter wouldn't do anything on its own, just like a LLM wouldn't do anything on its own, without a human telling it what to do. Both need input from the human and they transform this input into something else. The difference is the LLM got some preprogrammed input (indeed, some of it part of its training set which is a mash up from actual people's novels, etc.) as well as the current input, provided by the human prompt.The LLM is not anything like an independent entity creating anything.. it's just some code doing what it's programmed to do
-
@drahardja Hmmm.. not sure.. but this made me think more about it: say, the typewriter is actually changing the inputted letters a bit, for example it's changing some of the Ts into Ss and maybe the author notices it and likes the output, or not, but in any case they want to copyright the resulting book (with the "typos"). That would be valid, right?
Now, isn't the output of an LLM a combination of its inputs (prompt) and its internal machinery (transforming the inputs)? So why can't the output be copyrighted?
Edit: we should probably also consider the training set as part of the inputs, but I still don't think the output can't be copyrighted. However, who would benefit from the copyright is a good question, probably all the authors of the work that went into the training set + the person who wrote the code of the LLM + the person who wrote the prompt..
EDIT: As @LeslieBurns says below, this is INCORRECT.
I’m not a lawyer. But intuitively, as the SCOTUS implies, copyright protects the work of humans. When writing a prompt to generate art, a machine is performing the vast majority of the transformation from the billions of works it ingested, not the human. Granted, *how much* human work needs to happen for something to be “transformative” (and thus grant the person a copyright) has been a subject of debate for decades, but generative AI is nowhere close to that threshold IMO.
-
@blogdiva Does this mean all those AI-generated ads are not copyrightable?
Time to remix.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/coca-cola-causes-controversy-ai-made-ad-rcna180665
@drahardja Even more of a threat to film and music execs and producers wanting to use AI for films, TV and music. This could devalue those threats to human content creators.
-
EDIT: As @LeslieBurns says below, this is INCORRECT.
I’m not a lawyer. But intuitively, as the SCOTUS implies, copyright protects the work of humans. When writing a prompt to generate art, a machine is performing the vast majority of the transformation from the billions of works it ingested, not the human. Granted, *how much* human work needs to happen for something to be “transformative” (and thus grant the person a copyright) has been a subject of debate for decades, but generative AI is nowhere close to that threshold IMO.
@drahardja
I agree to some extent, and I'm also not a lawyer, but instead of saying that the output of a LLM can't be copyrighted, I think it would mean that the question is who should benefit from the copyright (or patent). Certainly not just the person who entered the prompt. Instead it would be more like a group work: all of those who contributed to any of the LLM's inputs: all the authors of the stolen work + the person who programmed the LLM + the person who prompted the LLM. The machine itself is not doing any work - just following instructions, like my typewriter, but in a more complex manner.(Edited my previous post to add this)
It's definitely interesting to think about it!
-
@jaystephens
Right.. But a typewriter wouldn't do anything on its own, just like a LLM wouldn't do anything on its own, without a human telling it what to do. Both need input from the human and they transform this input into something else. The difference is the LLM got some preprogrammed input (indeed, some of it part of its training set which is a mash up from actual people's novels, etc.) as well as the current input, provided by the human prompt.The LLM is not anything like an independent entity creating anything.. it's just some code doing what it's programmed to do
@elduvelle
"its training set which is a mash up from actual people's novels, etc" is the key point.
The output cannot be considered only the result of the prompt, which was the only work done by the user. -
@elduvelle
"its training set which is a mash up from actual people's novels, etc" is the key point.
The output cannot be considered only the result of the prompt, which was the only work done by the user.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.
-
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 lol
-
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 -
@Viss that is EXACTLY the admission i was thinking of. also, the AWS “agentic” fiasco that deleted a whole server farm, or whatever it was? yah. should be interesting.
-
EDIT: As @LeslieBurns says below, this is INCORRECT.
I’m not a lawyer. But intuitively, as the SCOTUS implies, copyright protects the work of humans. When writing a prompt to generate art, a machine is performing the vast majority of the transformation from the billions of works it ingested, not the human. Granted, *how much* human work needs to happen for something to be “transformative” (and thus grant the person a copyright) has been a subject of debate for decades, but generative AI is nowhere close to that threshold IMO.
@elduvelle
Yeah... you're right: you are NOT a lawyer.I am and you don't know what you are talking about. Transformation has NOTHING to do with copyrightability. Nada. Nichevo. Rien.
(@drahardja )
-
@blogdiva Does this mean all those AI-generated ads are not copyrightable?
Time to remix.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/coca-cola-causes-controversy-ai-made-ad-rcna180665
Diss Coca-cola online and above that, STOP DRINKING IT!
-
@Viss that is EXACTLY the admission i was thinking of. also, the AWS “agentic” fiasco that deleted a whole server farm, or whatever it was? yah. should be interesting.
-
@blogdiva that's silly, it's like saying something written by a typewriter is not copyright-able because it was made by a machine.. The "AI" program was made by a human in the first place, it's just slightly more sophisticated..
@elduvelle @blogdiva Genuinely curious, are you always this silly or do you just play ridiculous as a Reply Guy?
-
@drahardja Even more of a threat to film and music execs and producers wanting to use AI for films, TV and music. This could devalue those threats to human content creators.
@calbearo @drahardja yeah, pretty excited to start remixing Aranofsky's slop Revolutionary War series!
-
@elduvelle
Yeah... you're right: you are NOT a lawyer.I am and you don't know what you are talking about. Transformation has NOTHING to do with copyrightability. Nada. Nichevo. Rien.
(@drahardja )
@LeslieBurns @elduvelle @drahardja
LMAO damn.
-
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 Also could make it harder for Hollywood and TV production studios, who are probably thinking they'll go full AI at some point in the coming years.
