Post #3089557
2026-03-04 14:22 UTC
Replies (4)
-
@aeris@firefish.imirhil.fr 2026-03-04 14:34
@thomasjwebb@mastodon.social @Foxboron@chaos.social @scy@chaos.social They decide that. AI material is not human generated, so not copyrightable. But it doesn't mean this material is not copyright infringement, the only dropped case concerned AI ppl trying to sue other AI ppl based on copyright, not at all real human pursuing AI material. Currently NYT is on this way, and solid rock at this time : https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/05/technology/new-york-times-perplexity-ai-lawsuit.html
-
@paul@oldfriends.live 2026-03-04 17:09
@thomasjwebb@mastodon.social Right now, that is how SCOTUS is leaning regarding AI generated output. They refused to interfere with a patent application and "artist" copyright, leaving it up to the copyright and patent offices to decide, which they said no. Some guy used AI to create a beverage holder and light beacon using AI. When the patent was denied, he tried to copyright the AI created "artist" renditions to get around the patent. @Foxboron@chaos.social @scy@chaos.social https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-declines-hear-dispute-over-copyrights-ai-generated-material-2026-03-02/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-449.html
-
@blogdiva@mastodon.social 2026-03-04 17:31
YUP copyright is for humans, not automata ―hard or soft. so, ironically, the prompts are copyrightable but not the output. so anything you want to copyright should not be prompted into a corporate regurgitation machine, including so-called grammar checkers. @thomasjwebb@mastodon.social @Foxboron@chaos.social @scy@chaos.social
-
@wordshaper@weatherishappening.network 2026-03-04 19:39
@thomasjwebb@mastodon.social @Foxboron@chaos.social @scy@chaos.social In the US, at least, human authorship is required for copyright, and if you try to copyright something that's a mix of AI and human generated then generally only the human generated part is copyrightable. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922#:~:text=Granting%20that%20human%20authors%20may,applying%20to%20register%20their%20copyright. This is separate from the LLMs emitting text other people have written, so at *best* this code can't be licensed because it's not copyrightable, and at worst its license laundering and there's precedent (IIRC) for stomping on that hard.