U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containing AI-generated material

Re:U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containin... by mikehollinger on Thursday March 16, 2023 @10:59PM (#35192420)

I noticed this as well.

The implication to generated code is pretty astounding tho.

What about all those (c) foo 2023 prologs you see all over the place? Will there be arguments that specific lines weren’t written by a human so therefore the entirety the claim isn’t valid? Or will there be refactors to push generated code out to a well known path or construct (akin to a header / implementation or some such)?

And on top of that, what if your “secret sauce” comes back to some form of generated construct (looking at you, Whoop, with your “strain” and “recovery” scores.

Further still - can a “machine-readable medium” that was written by a machine be patented?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containin... by undefinedzero on Friday March 17, 2023 @02:54AM (#35194077)

As per this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35192038, I reckon the whole is “creative enough” and would be protected as the developer only used parts and cherry picked and combined what they needed.

[ Parent | on HN ]