you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

You're the second person I've replied to about that, but they give only two examples of image generation which were denied for claiming to contain absolutely no human authorship which can be considered subjective by the courts as digital camera output is copyrightable based on who presses the button, the office admits they are waiting for public input (the legislative body) on the matter, and also since this is the copyright office it has no bearing on other types of established property such as license or patent law.

Until the laws clarify I say treat AI code as radioactive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago*

    That person was also me, funnily enough!


    since this is the copyright office it has no bearing on other types of established property such as license or patent law

    Buddy, patents are public domain. That's the whole point of a patent.

    As part of the terms of granting the patent to the inventor, patents are published into the public domain.


    the office admits they are waiting for public input (the legislative body) on the matter

    No they don't - they've published their current rules and state that those rules are their interpretation and those rules will stand until and unless further rulings or legislation comes out to change the situation. You know, how laws work?

  • source
  • parent