Re:Judge dismisses majority of GitHub Copilot copyright claims
by stale2002 on Thursday August 29, 2024 @03:00AM
(#41388107)
> The line we draw is "did a human creatively and intentionally produce the output" or "did a computer".
Nope! Thats not true at all.
If a human word for word wrote out the harry potter books, they wouldn't be protected.
Instead, the line is drawn at if the new works is covered under fair use.
And a human is perfectly able to use a computer to do that in all sorts of circumstances. The human or computer being involved is completely irrelevant here.
> human creativity
Nope. Human creativity only matters for protecting works. It has nothing to do with whether you can create them with a computer.
It is perfectly possible for it to be completely legal to use a computer produce a piece of work, without infringing on anything, and yet the newly created work isn't protected in the future from other people copying it.
Nope! Thats not true at all.
If a human word for word wrote out the harry potter books, they wouldn't be protected.
Instead, the line is drawn at if the new works is covered under fair use.
And a human is perfectly able to use a computer to do that in all sorts of circumstances. The human or computer being involved is completely irrelevant here.
> human creativity
Nope. Human creativity only matters for protecting works. It has nothing to do with whether you can create them with a computer.
It is perfectly possible for it to be completely legal to use a computer produce a piece of work, without infringing on anything, and yet the newly created work isn't protected in the future from other people copying it.