> I believe that's what is currently being argued in court. If AI is trained > on human content and prints out something based on it, is it a non-human > creation? This isn't a case of a monkey taking a selfie, where the content > provider is clearly non-human. This is a machine that uses human created > content to derive new creations.
If the output were deemed copyrightable, who should own that copyright? Option 1 is "The human that crafted the prompt to generate it" Option 2 is "The corporation that spent vast resources to create that AI model" Option 3 is "The owners of the copyrighted material used to train the AI". If a court ever must decide which to pick, it may well pick the answer requested by the best funded legal team (which would be option 2). -Tony
