On Mon, 2025-11-10 at 21:52 +0000, Luck, Tony wrote: > > 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?
So far (Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta) the decisions have been that the output is transformative enough that that is, in fact, an independent 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" This is possible, but so far hasn't been argued. > > Option 2 is "The corporation that spent vast resources to create that > AI model" This would require a change of law in the US to allow a non-human content creator to hold copyright; absent that there's nothing copyrightable the corporation can lay claim to (not that the AI industry might not be motivated to seek this eventually if they have trouble monetizing AI). > Option 3 is "The owners of the copyrighted material used to train the > AI". This is the derivative of training argument which has so far failed. Regards, James
