Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   your auntifa liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦 (blogdiva@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 03-Mar-2026 06:52:05 JST your auntifa liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦

   so 3 courts + US Copyright Office say you cannot copyright nor patent anything made primarily with LLMs because automata aren't human.

   #SCOTUS won't review these rules because copyright is meant to protect human creations, not software or automata.

   this may mean #AWSlop #Microslop are “de-copyrighting” & “de-patenting” their own proprietary software as they let automata “code” 🧐

   ❝ AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted after Supreme Court declines to review the rule
   https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright

   • Doughnut Lollipop 【記録係】:blobfoxgooglymlem: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Leslie Burns (leslieburns@esq.social)'s status on Tuesday, 03-Mar-2026 14:33:22 JST Leslie Burns

     in reply to

     • El Duvelle
     • Dave Rahardja
     • Sharlatan

     @sharlatan @elduvelle @drahardja I spent years in law school and personal study on top of that to learn about copyright law. It cannot be explained on social media. But, fundamentally, in the US, something must be an expression of *human* creativity to be copyrightable. The tools may be whatever, but at its core it must be human expression.

     And transformation has nothing to do with that. The term transformation is from the fair use doctrine, and has been perverted by anti-copyright folk.

   • Embed this notice
     Sharlatan (sharlatan@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 03-Mar-2026 14:33:23 JST Sharlatan

     in reply to

     • El Duvelle
     • Dave Rahardja
     • Leslie Burns

     @LeslieBurns @elduvelle @drahardja may you provide more details please 🙏?

     Steve's Place repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Leslie Burns (leslieburns@esq.social)'s status on Tuesday, 03-Mar-2026 14:33:24 JST Leslie Burns

     in reply to

     • El Duvelle
     • Dave Rahardja

     @elduvelle
     Yeah... you're right: you are NOT a lawyer.

     I am and you don't know what you are talking about. Transformation has NOTHING to do with copyrightability. Nada. Nichevo. Rien.

     (@drahardja )

   • Embed this notice
     Dave Rahardja (drahardja@sfba.social)'s status on Tuesday, 03-Mar-2026 14:33:25 JST Dave Rahardja

     in reply to

     • El Duvelle
     • Leslie Burns

     @elduvelle

     EDIT: As @LeslieBurns says below, this is INCORRECT.

     I’m not a lawyer. But intuitively, as the SCOTUS implies, copyright protects the work of humans. When writing a prompt to generate art, a machine is performing the vast majority of the transformation from the billions of works it ingested, not the human. Granted, *how much* human work needs to happen for something to be “transformative” (and thus grant the person a copyright) has been a subject of debate for decades, but generative AI is nowhere close to that threshold IMO.

   • Embed this notice
     El Duvelle (elduvelle@neuromatch.social)'s status on Tuesday, 03-Mar-2026 14:33:26 JST El Duvelle

     in reply to

     • Dave Rahardja

     @drahardja Hmmm.. not sure.. but this made me think more about it: say, the typewriter is actually changing the inputted letters a bit, for example it's changing some of the Ts into Ss and maybe the author notices it and likes the output, or not, but in any case they want to copyright the resulting book (with the "typos"). That would be valid, right?

     Now, isn't the output of an LLM a combination of its inputs (prompt) and its internal machinery (transforming the inputs)? So why can't the output be copyrighted?

     Edit: we should probably also consider the training set as part of the inputs, but I still don't think the output can't be copyrighted. However, who would benefit from the copyright is a good question, probably all the authors of the work that went into the training set + the person who wrote the code of the LLM + the person who wrote the prompt..

   • Embed this notice
     El Duvelle (elduvelle@neuromatch.social)'s status on Tuesday, 03-Mar-2026 14:33:27 JST El Duvelle

     in reply to

     @blogdiva that's silly, it's like saying something written by a typewriter is not copyright-able because it was made by a machine.. The "AI" program was made by a human in the first place, it's just slightly more sophisticated..

   • Embed this notice
     Dave Rahardja (drahardja@sfba.social)'s status on Tuesday, 03-Mar-2026 14:33:27 JST Dave Rahardja

     in reply to

     • El Duvelle

     @elduvelle @blogdiva When you copyright a book, you’re not copyrighting the output of your typewriter; you’re copyrighting your work.

     The AI program can be copyrighted. Its output can’t.

     It’s pretty consistent.