zlacker

Legally, copyright is only concerned with the specific end work. A unique or not so unique standalone object that is being scrutinized, if this analogy helps.

The process involved in obtaining that end work is completely irrelevant to any copyright case. It can be a claim against the models weights (not possible as it's fair use), or it's against the specific once off output end work (less clear), but it can't be looked at as a whole.

>>KoolKa+(OP)
I don't think that's accurate. The us copyright office last year issued guidance that basically said anything generated with ai can't be copyrighted, as human authorship/creation is required for copyright. Works can incorporate ai generated content but then those parts aren't covered by copyright.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...

So I think the law, at least as currently interpreted, does care about the process.

Though maybe you meant as to whether a new work infringes existing copyright? As this guidance is clearly about new copyright.

>>dgolds+J1
These are two sides of the same coin, and what I'm saying still stands. This is talking about who you attribute authorship to when copyrighting a specific work. Basically on the application form, the author must be a human. The reason it's worth them clarifying is because they've received applications that attributed AI's, and legal persons do exist that aren't human (such as companies), they're just making it clear it has to be human.

Who created the work, it's the user who instructed the AI (it's a tool), you can't attribute it to the AI. It would be the equivalent of Photoshop being attributed as co-author on your work.

>>dgolds+J1
Couldn't you just generate it with AI then say you wrote it? How could anyone prove you wrong?

>>arrows+g5
That's what you're supposed to do. No need to hide it either :).