Er, no - about it not being public domain. That’s the claim you made that has been shown to be false. Trying to make it about AI being bad is the walking back.
I’m not going to go fishing around for the case you and technician are referring to, but if it’s anything like OP’s links then it doesn’t say what you’re claiming it says and/or isn’t nearly as broad and all encompassing as you describe. I don’t live in a nation ruled by the blog/tabloid “synthtopia”.
When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship.[31]
As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.[32]
You’re the second person I’ve replied to about that, but they give only two examples of image generation which were denied for claiming to contain absolutely no human authorship which can be considered subjective by the courts as digital camera output is copyrightable based on who presses the button, the office admits they are waiting for public input (the legislative body) on the matter, and also since this is the copyright office it has no bearing on other types of established property such as license or patent law.
Until the laws clarify I say treat AI code as radioactive.
the office admits they are waiting for public input (the legislative body) on the matter
No they don’t - they’ve published their current rules and state that those rules are their interpretation and those rules will stand until and unless further rulings or legislation comes out to change the situation. You know, how laws work?
Er, no - about it not being public domain. That’s the claim you made that has been shown to be false. Trying to make it about AI being bad is the walking back.
AI Slop is not Public Domain. My statements have been consistent about that and remain true.
Aight and the proof already provided shows that it is in fact considered to be in the public domain, which proves you’re wrong.
May I see it?
You already responded to it?
I’m not going to go fishing around for the case you and technician are referring to, but if it’s anything like OP’s links then it doesn’t say what you’re claiming it says and/or isn’t nearly as broad and all encompassing as you describe. I don’t live in a nation ruled by the blog/tabloid “synthtopia”.
I mean sure you can ignore the court ruling, but here’s the copyright office’s guidance (which they also provided later in an edit) and it clarifies that AI generated work is not eligible for copyright
You’re the second person I’ve replied to about that, but they give only two examples of image generation which were denied for claiming to contain absolutely no human authorship which can be considered subjective by the courts as digital camera output is copyrightable based on who presses the button, the office admits they are waiting for public input (the legislative body) on the matter, and also since this is the copyright office it has no bearing on other types of established property such as license or patent law.
Until the laws clarify I say treat AI code as radioactive.
That person was also me, funnily enough!
Buddy, patents are public domain. That’s the whole point of a patent.
No they don’t - they’ve published their current rules and state that those rules are their interpretation and those rules will stand until and unless further rulings or legislation comes out to change the situation. You know, how laws work?