so 3 courts + US Copyright Office say you cannot copyright nor patent anything made primarily with LLMs because automata aren't human.
-
@elduvelle 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. -
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
-
@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.
-
@elduvelle 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.
Coca-Cola causes controversy with AI-generated ad
Coca-Cola is facing backlash online over an artificial intelligence-made Christmas promotional video that users are calling “soulless” and “devoid of any actual creativity.”
NBC News (www.nbcnews.com)
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.
-
R relay@relay.an.exchange shared this topic
-
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.
-
@elduvelle @blogdiva Genuinely curious, are you always this silly or do you just play ridiculous as a Reply Guy?
@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?
-
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-copyrightThe 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
-
@blogdiva Does this mean all those AI-generated ads are not copyrightable?
Time to remix.
Coca-Cola causes controversy with AI-generated ad
Coca-Cola is facing backlash online over an artificial intelligence-made Christmas promotional video that users are calling “soulless” and “devoid of any actual creativity.”
NBC News (www.nbcnews.com)
@drahardja @blogdiva
Copyrights are only to protect the Epstein class, silly. -
@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.
If AI has been trained on copyrighted material from all these studios, it’s yo ho, yo ho Pirates life for us
-
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
?
