> code created by an AI is not copyrightable and it’s output is in the public domain

This isn't settled yet, and while the license may ultimately be meaningless, it lets people compile and use the code without risking copyright law violation.

I do agree about AI washing though, ethically any code you generate using AI should be licensed as similarly to the source material as possible.

A USCO opinion, and then two more confirmations of that opinion, one before Congress, is not settled? Unless the law changes the only thing licensable is the prompts.

There was a thing, but it didn't happen often, where a GPL advocate would take an MIT or BSD license project, make some additions, license their changes under the GPL, and effectively copyleft their release of the combined work.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the law is simple.

Code exists in the Linux kernel that is licensed under permissive licenses. This works because (some) permissive licenses contain no restrictions incompatible with releasing the code and/or derivative works under the GPL.

This is why the original BSD license (with advertising clause) was incompatible with the GPL, while BSD without the advertising clause is not.

"Public domain" is not a license, and has different meanings in different jurisdictions, and thus it can be useful to release code under a license even if the intent is unrestricted use.

The opinion was only for fully ai-generated content, notably the human-authored components of the comic were still protected. Whats unsettled is when the artifact is built up over multiple rounds of targeted edits to existing output in collaboration with a human, and whether that output is protected.

I'm guessing there's too much money in that being protected for it not to be protected so, no I think providing LICENSE is still worthwhile.

USCO doesn't make the law nor do they decide what the law says, they just register Copyrights. However, registration is not necessary for a work to be protected under Copyright law.

Congress makes the law then the Court interprets it, which hasn't happened yet.

If choosing the position / angle of a camera and its settings is enough to gain Copyright over the images it generates then prompting a model to generate an image is enough too. I don't see how anyone can come to any other conclusion.

The creativity bar for Copyright is not high. An alphabetically ordered list of customers does not meet it. Pointing a camera at someone and pushing the button does.

Congress has made the laws and USCO interprets them and makes rules based on its interpretation. Those are the implementation of those laws.

Directing is not copyrightable. The person who takes the picture owns the copyright (fixation rule) unless some other contract says otherwise. Saying the prompt writer is a director reduces their claim to ownership.

AI code being public domain doesn't preclude a license. Code under public domain can be incorporated on a work regardless of its license. The license will apply to the combined work as a whole, even though the portion under public domain will remain public domain.

For example, if I take a public domain file and incorporate it into my GPL project, if you make a derivative of the project as a whole, you still need to follow the GPL. But you can also take that file and use it with no regard for the project's license, since the file itself is public domain.

You cannot take a public domain work and choose to relicense it with something more restrictive. Licensing is based on copyright. If you have no copyright, you cannot license. Attempting to do so is fraud.

The NOTICE or other document could specify which parts are covered under copyright, but they do not. Apache 2.0 restricts what others can do with this (as limited as those requirements are). This is not allowed under current copyright laws.

You cannot relicense a public domain work, but you can release a public domain work under a different license. If you couldn't, you wouldn't be able to make derivative works out of public domain material without the derivative also being public domain.

The new license simply doesn't apply to anything that is in the public domain, only to the new parts and to the combined work.

> Zarya of the Dawn concludes that human direction and selection is not enough to produce a copyrightable work from AI generated content. Without copyright, there is no legal basis to offer a license. The code is public domain or worse, mislicensed, AI washed GPL or BSD.

I am of the opinion that there is very little humans can do that other reasonably competent humans cannot also do. So the entire idea of IPR is a joke, but the idea has been with us for a few centuries and might stay on for one more.

That said, human direction is critical in so many things. A camera can be operated by any monkey; all you need to do is click a button. But knowing how to focus, what to focus on, and so may of those tiny decisions is what makes photography an art form. There are hundreds of such fields where the actual human effort involves providing direction to an otherwise mechanical process.

I’m not saying current copyright law is correct, moral, or otherwise.

Just trying to bring awareness to the absolute crap show that is going to happen when these start getting litigated, RIAA style.