Post #3089525
2026-03-04 12:23 UTC
Replies (7)
-
@scy@chaos.social 2026-03-04 12:24
@Foxboron@chaos.social But does "is not copyrightable" mean that "is not a license violation of its input data"? I highly doubt it.
-
@thomasjwebb@mastodon.social 2026-03-04 14:22
@Foxboron@chaos.social @scy@chaos.social hol' up... the *output* isn't copyrightable? That would be awesome if they decided that.
-
@dalias@hachyderm.io 2026-03-04 15:38
@Foxboron@chaos.social @scy@chaos.social This means that anything "new" (i.e. nothing) the "AI" brought to the work is not a creative work that you can hold copyright to just because you were the person prompting/using the "AI". It does NOT mean that the copyright on whatever the AI plagiarized is void. But that's how the industry will try to spin these rulings. We need to point out this distinction and fight their attempts to mislead in order to seize and enclose our work.
-
@jti42@infosec.exchange 2026-03-04 20:19
@Foxboron@chaos.social @scy@chaos.social That'd be the US system. Then there's the various Euro systems that differ substantially. I'm certainly curious how this will turn out. On the other hand: it'd require that those who can enforce their rights here actually do so. Given that IP rights are normally enforced pretty harshly, even on consumers (anyone remember the days of the torrent c&d letters or the traditional find&ban the infringing exhibitor days on computex et al?) they're effectively completely ignored on FOSS. There is virtually no education for biz, cs or law students on this topic, let alone mandatory ed. Presenting the case of possibilities and rights to those who have them is often dismissed by those, especially developers on the younger side or those who are still in a "hobby" / "non commercial" stage. Only to shortly after complain about sustainability and demanding funding. Instead we see demands to throw substantial amounts of tax money after random Foss projects on more or less random criteria and evaluators. Which will totally scale, right? Virtually every company that was enforced against in terms of FOSS compliance ended up consciously allocating resources to FOSS in various ways. There are a lot of companies and they are a renewable resource in a functional economy. But what do I know, rite? I just see the cases. /rant
-
@KekunPlazas@mamot.fr 2026-03-04 22:00
@Foxboron@chaos.social @scy@chaos.social So it's not copyrightable, what are they using to apply the MIT license if not their copyright‽ That makes no sense to me. (I'm reacting to you but to what you shared, to be clear.)
-
@nobody@mastodon.acm.org 2026-03-05 23:29
@Foxboron@chaos.social Not a copyright fan, but us court just plain lazy @scy@chaos.social
-
@tachi@infosec.exchange 2026-03-06 18:32
@Foxboron@chaos.social "not copyrightable" doesn't sound like "public domain", but more like "you cannot claim your copyright on it, and cannot slap a license on it". Is that what you mean?