• FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    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.

    • Victor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 minutes ago

      🙄 Very mature. 👍

      I’m not asking what it doesn’t say, in case you missed that. I was asking what it does say, according to you.

      (I was quoting your use of supposition because you are supposing stuff instead of making verifiable claims.)

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Hey, so here’s the official opinion of the US copyright office on this matter.
      If you look at this part right here:

      “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.