Re:AI-Generated Art Lacks Copyright Protection, D.C. Court Says
by bryanrasmussen on Saturday August 19, 2023 @11:50AM
(#37189964)
I'm pretty sure if the output of the code could be seen as deterministic, that is to say the code just makes what will be produced 1000 times quicker, then the work would be copyrightable but if the output is not deterministic then we cannot say to whom the copyright should belong.
Re:AI-Generated Art Lacks Copyright Protection, D.C. Court Says
by cma on Saturday August 19, 2023 @01:01PM
(#37190785)
What if you roll dice in making choices in a traditional work?
Re:AI-Generated Art Lacks Copyright Protection, D.C. Court Says
by randombits0 on Saturday August 19, 2023 @02:42PM
(#37191769)
Only creative expressions are copyrightable. Purely functional expressions are not.
Re:AI-Generated Art Lacks Copyright Protection, D.C. Court Says
by regularfry on Saturday August 19, 2023 @04:49PM
(#37193040)
Different area of law, but I'm pretty sure computer generated ideas have been patented before now.
Traditionally code would be written as a tool to achieve a specific output. If you automate the task of generating a particular piece of code, you still did all the work, or at least defined it pprecisely. While I don't see AI as an independent mind (yet) it seems independent enough from the person who prompts it to say the prompter doesn't own the output. I'm so 100 percent on what I just wrote, but it seems reasonable enough to say the precedent you mention may not apply.