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 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.
-
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
Yeah that would be a fair outcome.
It rather raises the question of to what extent the intended purpose of commercial LLMs as they actually exist is to obfuscate things precisely so that any outcome like that is unachievable. -
@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 may you provide more details please
? -
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 Good point, maybe we can #DeMicrosoft the world, by arguing that, we could, potentially, make MS Apps, Software and maybe even Windows #OpenSource.
I know, dreaming...
-
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-copyrightIf 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?
-
@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
Thank you showing up to the party.
LOVE ME SOME…..
“well, actually, let me explain it you.” -
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 Even the worst SCOTUS of my lifetime says, "If you can't be arsed to make it, I can't be bothered to copyright it."
-
BTW
as Google attempts to turn #Android phones proprietary, what with the way techbros have conspired to use embeddables as backdoors; should be insteresting to do a full auditing of the hardware and software used in Android phones specifically manufactured for the USA market.
basically, techbros have hidden behide “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.
@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...
-
@DrSaucy I'm not sure what your problem is, but are you sure you are answering to the correct post? Reply guy? What is ridiculous in my post?
@elduvelle I've no problem & I'm quite certain my reply was to your sophomoric response to the OP.
-
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 "Thaler asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling in October 2025, arguing it “created a chilling effect on anyone else considering using AI creatively.”"
-good
-
@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 I’d love to learn more!
-
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 have a feeling this will eventually be heard and ruled in favour of the corporations when enough big corps have more AI garbage than actual human work, just like how they ruled corporations are people when it comes to election financing.
-
@LeslieBurns @elduvelle @drahardja may you provide more details please
?@sharlatan @elduvelle @drahardja I spent years in law school and personal study on top of that to learn about copyright law. It cannot be explained on social media. But, fundamentally, in the US, something must be an expression of *human* creativity to be copyrightable. The tools may be whatever, but at its core it must be human expression.
And transformation has nothing to do with that. The term transformation is from the fair use doctrine, and has been perverted by anti-copyright folk.
-
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
Who the heck would want Microslop code??? -
@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.
