I wish that were true but unfortunately the situation is far more dire than that…
The AI Code belongs to the AI Company more than the public, meaning they can enforce license and usage rights on the entire codebase. If only because of the contract users sign when they agree to ToS.
The opposite is also true, though, that if the AI Company generates licensed works of others due to their training data that they should be held responsible in a court of law.
This take is weird, because none of the companies that do inference claim ownership of the generated content in their contracts for one, and because anyone can download open source models and generate code without entering into any ToS, for two.
The claim being made here isn’t wild conjecture. It’s based on a legal analysis done by the congressional research service. That’s a rather authoritative source that Congress itself uses to understand the implications of many things - amongst which are the implications and impacts of the laws it codifies.
What is your supposition based on, such that it’s more authoritative than that?
Just as a sanity check: the person you’re responding to is a serial troll and what I can only describe as intellectually dishonest at best or a pathological liar at worst. They make up whatever they want and will never concede that the fucking nonsense they just dreamed up five seconds ago based on nothing is wrong in the face of conclusive proof otherwise.
You shouldn’t waste your time responding to this cretin.
I get it; I respond to these things in a cogent and incisive fashion so that other users can see a sane counterpoint, or at least a request for justification or proof that then goes unfulfilled.
Oh, sorry, I said that totally wrong: I meant that I really appreciate your first comment and that it’s not worth your time to reply to their bad-faith follow-up comment.
Yeah I read the link at the bottom, it doesn’t claim what the post claims at all.
My supposition is that the human element that creates the code is that of the AI Company and not the user, on the basis that the user is actually incapable of doing so.
“When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship. As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.”
That’s where it says that right now, generative works are ineligible for copyright.
But it doesn’t say it is public domain nor invalidate the contract between the user. It also does not clearly define how much human element does or does not make it copyrightable.
The only two examples in the text were AI Generated Images.
Based on these developments, the Office concludes that public guidance is needed on the registration of works containing AI-generated content. This statement of policy describes how the Office applies copyright law’s human authorship requirement to applications to register such works and provides guidance to applicants.
The Office recognizes that AI-generated works implicate other copyright issues not addressed in this statement. It has launched an agency-wide initiative to delve into a wide range of these issues. Among other things, the Office intends to publish a notice of inquiry later this year seeking public input on additional legal and policy topics, including how the law should apply to the use of copyrighted works in AI training and the resulting treatment of outputs.
Also, Not Copyrightable != Public Domain
For example, any new kind of wrench is not copyrightable either but other types of property laws like Patents and Licensure apply to their creation.
My advice, and I say this from a place of goodwill and empathy, is that nobody should use slop code nor treat it as their own code because until congress and legislative bodies around the world clarify this it is not factual.
The public domain is not a place. A work of authorship is in the “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner.
invalidate the contract between the user.
Why do you keep bringing this up? Nobody else here cares and this claim isn’t in dispute - open source software can and is licensed all the time. That doesn’t change your initial claims about the output from Generative AI not being able to be held under copyright.
The only two examples in the text were AI Generated Images.
Man, it sure is weird how you ignore that they explicitly clarify that this applies to generated text too:
If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it. For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user.
God this is satisfying. Thank you for being like this.
Being in the public domain means being there in perpetuity. The Copyright Office is rejecting generated image applications while asking for future legislature to clarify.
Ah yes I recognitize that quote, of course, its from god. Clearly the authority of the laws of our countries mean nothing in the face of that quote. /s
I wish that were true but unfortunately the situation is far more dire than that…
The AI Code belongs to the AI Company more than the public, meaning they can enforce license and usage rights on the entire codebase. If only because of the contract users sign when they agree to ToS.
The opposite is also true, though, that if the AI Company generates licensed works of others due to their training data that they should be held responsible in a court of law.
This take is weird, because none of the companies that do inference claim ownership of the generated content in their contracts for one, and because anyone can download open source models and generate code without entering into any ToS, for two.
If you want a fun exercise, take the comments in this thread and replace the word AI with “Stack Overflow”
Devs getting some of their code from a website is not new, even if it’s via API
The claim being made here isn’t wild conjecture. It’s based on a legal analysis done by the congressional research service. That’s a rather authoritative source that Congress itself uses to understand the implications of many things - amongst which are the implications and impacts of the laws it codifies.
What is your supposition based on, such that it’s more authoritative than that?
Just as a sanity check: the person you’re responding to is a serial troll and what I can only describe as intellectually dishonest at best or a pathological liar at worst. They make up whatever they want and will never concede that the fucking nonsense they just dreamed up five seconds ago based on nothing is wrong in the face of conclusive proof otherwise.
You shouldn’t waste your time responding to this cretin.
I get it; I respond to these things in a cogent and incisive fashion so that other users can see a sane counterpoint, or at least a request for justification or proof that then goes unfulfilled.
Oh, sorry, I said that totally wrong: I meant that I really appreciate your first comment and that it’s not worth your time to reply to their bad-faith follow-up comment.
Windows was already copyrighted and registered with the office before ai code was introduced.
The copyright office refusing to register the version with ai code does not affect the already registered copyright.
The version with ai code is a derivative product of the registered version so M$ will get you for copyright infringement.
Not considering this obvious context makes the Twitter poster completely unreliable.
Yeah I read the link at the bottom, it doesn’t claim what the post claims at all.
My supposition is that the human element that creates the code is that of the AI Company and not the user, on the basis that the user is actually incapable of doing so.
Would you be willing to elaborate a little more to raise credibility in light of this comment?
Like, what are the links posted saying then, if not the statement in this post, by your expert analysis?
Oh yarr, heck yeah, here look at this part right here:
That’s where the article doesn’t say the generative works are public domain. And furthermore this other part:
Is where it doesn’t say all terms of service contracts between the user and company are magically invalidated.
Do you have any other questions I can answer by presenting quotes of the parts that are not there?
P.S. Why are you quoting Supposition, I literally used the same term as the comment above it.
🙄 Very mature. 👍
I’m not asking what it doesn’t say, in case you missed that. I was asking what it does say, according to you.
(I was quoting your use of supposition because you are supposing stuff instead of making verifiable claims.)
Its right there under OP’s post go read it
Hey, so here’s the official opinion of the US copyright office on this matter.
If you look at this part right here:
That’s where it says that right now, generative works are ineligible for copyright.
But it doesn’t say it is public domain nor invalidate the contract between the user. It also does not clearly define how much human element does or does not make it copyrightable.
The only two examples in the text were AI Generated Images.
Also, Not Copyrightable != Public Domain
For example, any new kind of wrench is not copyrightable either but other types of property laws like Patents and Licensure apply to their creation.
My advice, and I say this from a place of goodwill and empathy, is that nobody should use slop code nor treat it as their own code because until congress and legislative bodies around the world clarify this it is not factual.
Not being under copyright means it is in the public domain. That’s literally the entire definition.
Why do you keep bringing this up? Nobody else here cares and this claim isn’t in dispute - open source software can and is licensed all the time. That doesn’t change your initial claims about the output from Generative AI not being able to be held under copyright.
Man, it sure is weird how you ignore that they explicitly clarify that this applies to generated text too:
God this is satisfying. Thank you for being like this.
Being in the public domain means being there in perpetuity. The Copyright Office is rejecting generated image applications while asking for future legislature to clarify.
Do not use slop code.
But it doesn’t say it is public domain nor invalidate the contract between the user.
Not Copyrightable != Public Domain
Nope, that’s exactly what it means.
Ah yes I recognitize that quote, of course, its from god. Clearly the authority of the laws of our countries mean nothing in the face of that quote. /s
Thank you for that! 🙏