The US Supreme Court has declined to hear the AI copyright case.
-
The US Supreme Court has declined to hear the AI copyright case. So, the new Copyright Office guidance that says the output of prompting systems that produce art, sound, text, etc., cannot be copyrighted, no matter how many times the human re-prompts or iterates the system, is upheld: https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright
(Guidance from Copyright Office: https://copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf )
So, unless I'm misunderstanding something…
1) If your corporate codebase is written with AI, and it leaks to the public, too bad -- no copyright protections. People can take it and use it.
2) AI generated code is incompatible with GPL and GPL-like projects, because GPL requires copyright to be assigned in order to enforce the license.
Is that really what's happening? Am I misunderstanding something here?
-
undefined aeva@mastodon.gamedev.place shared this topic
-
The US Supreme Court has declined to hear the AI copyright case. So, the new Copyright Office guidance that says the output of prompting systems that produce art, sound, text, etc., cannot be copyrighted, no matter how many times the human re-prompts or iterates the system, is upheld: https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright
(Guidance from Copyright Office: https://copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf )
So, unless I'm misunderstanding something…
1) If your corporate codebase is written with AI, and it leaks to the public, too bad -- no copyright protections. People can take it and use it.
2) AI generated code is incompatible with GPL and GPL-like projects, because GPL requires copyright to be assigned in order to enforce the license.
Is that really what's happening? Am I misunderstanding something here?
@cancel I wonder how this applies (if at all) to procgen art and other non-destructive digital art workflows in general
-
@cancel I wonder how this applies (if at all) to procgen art and other non-destructive digital art workflows in general
@aeva I would assume the output of a procgen thing would not be copyrightable, yeah. But the code that generates the thing would be.
-
@aeva I would assume the output of a procgen thing would not be copyrightable, yeah. But the code that generates the thing would be.
@cancel from reading the report from the copy right office it sounds like it is less of a matter of was a computer involved and more whether the human author did anything at all.