The claim being made here isn’t wild conjecture. It’s based on a legal analysis done by the congressional research service. That’s a rather authoritative source that Congress itself uses to understand the implications of many things - amongst which are the implications and impacts of the laws it codifies.
What is your supposition based on, such that it’s more authoritative than that?
Just as a sanity check: the person you’re responding to is a serial troll and what I can only describe as intellectually dishonest at best or a pathological liar at worst. They make up whatever they want and will never concede that the fucking nonsense they just dreamed up five seconds ago based on nothing is wrong in the face of conclusive proof otherwise.
You shouldn’t waste your time responding to this cretin.
I get it; I respond to these things in a cogent and incisive fashion so that other users can see a sane counterpoint, or at least a request for justification or proof that then goes unfulfilled.
Oh, sorry, I said that totally wrong: I meant that I really appreciate your first comment and that it’s not worth your time to reply to their bad-faith follow-up comment.
Yeah I read the link at the bottom, it doesn’t claim what the post claims at all.
My supposition is that the human element that creates the code is that of the AI Company and not the user, on the basis that the user is actually incapable of doing so.
“When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship. As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.”
That’s where it says that right now, generative works are ineligible for copyright.
The claim being made here isn’t wild conjecture. It’s based on a legal analysis done by the congressional research service. That’s a rather authoritative source that Congress itself uses to understand the implications of many things - amongst which are the implications and impacts of the laws it codifies.
What is your supposition based on, such that it’s more authoritative than that?
Just as a sanity check: the person you’re responding to is a serial troll and what I can only describe as intellectually dishonest at best or a pathological liar at worst. They make up whatever they want and will never concede that the fucking nonsense they just dreamed up five seconds ago based on nothing is wrong in the face of conclusive proof otherwise.
You shouldn’t waste your time responding to this cretin.
I get it; I respond to these things in a cogent and incisive fashion so that other users can see a sane counterpoint, or at least a request for justification or proof that then goes unfulfilled.
Oh, sorry, I said that totally wrong: I meant that I really appreciate your first comment and that it’s not worth your time to reply to their bad-faith follow-up comment.
Windows was already copyrighted and registered with the office before ai code was introduced.
The copyright office refusing to register the version with ai code does not affect the already registered copyright.
The version with ai code is a derivative product of the registered version so M$ will get you for copyright infringement.
Not considering this obvious context makes the Twitter poster completely unreliable.
Yeah I read the link at the bottom, it doesn’t claim what the post claims at all.
My supposition is that the human element that creates the code is that of the AI Company and not the user, on the basis that the user is actually incapable of doing so.
Would you be willing to elaborate a little more to raise credibility in light of this comment?
Like, what are the links posted saying then, if not the statement in this post, by your expert analysis?
Oh yarr, heck yeah, here look at this part right here:
That’s where the article doesn’t say the generative works are public domain. And furthermore this other part:
Is where it doesn’t say all terms of service contracts between the user and company are magically invalidated.
Do you have any other questions I can answer by presenting quotes of the parts that are not there?
P.S. Why are you quoting Supposition, I literally used the same term as the comment above it.
Hey, so here’s the official opinion of the US copyright office on this matter.
If you look at this part right here:
That’s where it says that right now, generative works are ineligible for copyright.