The ruling stated that the Constitutional justification for copyright (and other IP) laws was to incentivize creators. AI does not need incentives, and thus AI-generated content cannot qualify for copyright. Under this line of reasoning, neither can patents (though note that trademarks derive value from the resources and effort spent promoting them, not from their creation, so trademarks are unaffected).
The act of prompting and customizing iteratively especially in systems which allow the user to submit a prompt ...are clearly creative works that USE an AI not uncopyrightable.
If you want to argue that point you absolutely cannot do so on the basis of a case that literally never addressed that issue unless you would like to traverse the muddy ground between actuality and fiction.
The case literally deals with the output of the AI model, not the input. But on that note...under existing law, code can be copyrighted but not its output. Thus, it is logical to reason that prompts to an AI model can also be copyrighted to the extent they are not strictly functional.
But with AI models and content generally, nobody cares about the prompts/inputs. The output is what matters. (For comparison: Deep Impact and Armaggedon were both the results of the same input: disaster movie in which a team of astronaughts has to go to the asteroid to blow it up before it destroys Earth. The "models" were different screenwriters and directors. Compare the outputs: one is a blockbuster classic, and most people don't remember the other movie.)
There was a statement on the prior thread that described the situation particularly well I'll reproduce it herein and link the original comment rather than trying to better it.
> The headline doesn’t seem to be what actually happened. The filer was arguing that the ai created the work on its own as a work for hire and thus the ai was the author with the computer scientist merely being the owner of the copyright as it was made for hire. I don’t think the argument that ai is a tool and the human operating it is the author was considered because the filer explicitly didn’t want to consider it.
> It makes it clear that the computer scientist doing the filing was trying to argue this was a work made for hire with the author being the computer. They wanted to argue that copyright can be assigned to non humans, but that just isn’t how the law works. The summary makes it clear early that it’s just taking their word that the work had no human input and was thus purely the creation of the computer.
In short
A: Computer generated efforts virtually certainly qualify for copyright.
B: Non-artists can in fact iterate and modify work not just randomly generate shit.
C: This will virtually certainly get much better over time.
You will still get much better work out of a professional who can both utilize such tools when desired, and actually create not just copy or prompt art. This thesis is supportable but we shouldn't build it on sand lest it look more vulnerable than it is.
The act of prompting and customizing iteratively especially in systems which allow the user to submit a prompt ...are clearly creative works that USE an AI not uncopyrightable.
If you want to argue that point you absolutely cannot do so on the basis of a case that literally never addressed that issue unless you would like to traverse the muddy ground between actuality and fiction.
The case literally deals with the output of the AI model, not the input. But on that note...under existing law, code can be copyrighted but not its output. Thus, it is logical to reason that prompts to an AI model can also be copyrighted to the extent they are not strictly functional.
But with AI models and content generally, nobody cares about the prompts/inputs. The output is what matters. (For comparison: Deep Impact and Armaggedon were both the results of the same input: disaster movie in which a team of astronaughts has to go to the asteroid to blow it up before it destroys Earth. The "models" were different screenwriters and directors. Compare the outputs: one is a blockbuster classic, and most people don't remember the other movie.)