There was a case in which a monkey took a picture and the owner of the camera wanted to publish the photo. Peta sued and lost because an animal can't hold any copyright as an human author is required for copyright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute

As you also find in the wikipedia article, this case is used to argue that ai generated content is not by an human author and consequently not copyrightable.

[–] iglou@programming.dev 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I'd argue that this is a different scenario, as AI is a tool, not a being. At least at this point.

A complex tool, but really just a tool. Without the human input, it can't do shit.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

There's already rulings on this holding that the prompt for all LLM or image generator isn't enough to count the result as the human's expression, thus no copyright (both in USA and other places)

You need both human expression and creative height to get copyright protection

[–] iglou@programming.dev 2 points 3 days ago

I'd argue that it is wildly different to vide coding.

[–] draco_aeneus@mander.xyz 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Exactly. If I use online Photoshop or whatever, and I use the red eye removal tool, I have copyright on that picture. Same if I create a picture from scratch. Just because someone like OpenAI hosts a more complex generator doesn't mean a whole new class of rules applies.

Whomever uses a tool, regardless of the complexity, is both responsible and benificiary of the result.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Not quite how copyright law works. Photoshop and similar gives you copyright because it captures your expression.

An LLM is more like work-for-hire but unlike a human artist it doesn't qualify for copyright protection and therefore neither does you

https://infosec.pub/comment/20390963

[–] draco_aeneus@mander.xyz 2 points 3 days ago

Well, not how USA copyright works, but point well taken. It seems I was too naïve in my understanding of copyright.