Jim Porter <[email protected]> writes: > The US Supreme Court has recently affirmed that the outputs of > generative AI aren't copyrightable; the "author" is held to be the > computer, but copyright is only applicable to creative works authored > by humans. The result is that the gen-AI outputs are public domain.
That's the US, and Free Software rests on a shared understanding of copyright that applies broadly (across Berne Convention countries). Did they really say that so precisely? I can certainly see that there can be no original copyright in LLM output, lacking a human, but I don't see how copyrighted input works are laundered of their copyrights. Put another way, if a monkey with a typewriter copies a copyrighted work, and adds a few funny sentences, then the monkey has no claim in the new work, but the original author still has a claim as a derived work. I would be interested to hear if this was addressed or not.
