RE: [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content
"Luck, Tony" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.ksummit,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.workflows |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <SJ1PR11MB6083B928B445DF82EE5AE3EEFCCEA@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> |
> 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? 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" Option 2 is "The corporation that spent vast resources to create that AI model" Option 3 is "The owners of the copyrighted material used to train the AI". If a court ever must decide which to pick, it may well pick the answer requested by the best funded legal team (which would be option 2). -Tony