It’s okay, the author of the article didn’t actually read (or understand) the Copyright Office’s recommendations. They are:
Based on an analysis of copyright law and policy, informed by the many thoughtful
comments in response to our NOI, the Office makes the following conclusions and
recommendations:
• Questions of copyrightability and AI can be resolved pursuant to existing law,
without the need for legislative change.
• The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect
the availability of copyright protection for the output.
• Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author,
even if the work also includes AI-generated material.
• Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there
is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.
• Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute
authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
• Based on the functioning of current generally available technology, prompts do not
alone provide sufficient control.
• Human authors are entitled to copyright in their works of authorship that are
perceptible in AI-generated outputs, as well as the creative selection, coordination,
or arrangement of material in the outputs, or creative modifications of the outputs.
• The case has not been made for additional copyright or sui generis protection for AI-
generated content.
Pretty much everything the article’s author stated is contradicted by the above.
It doesn’t read like AI to me, but their takeaways about copyright made me think the author had read an AI summary rather than the actual source material.
i agree at first glance, but being confidently incorrect (especially getting the source material correct but drawing a dead wrong conclusion) is sort of a hallmark of the model.
a couple years ago i was pretty good at spotting AI work but it does get harder as time goes on.
That’s a bit harsh. AI can be a great tool for assisting creativity.
That’s so much worse, wtf? airbrushed slop is fine but using it as inspiration, which good luck proving that, isn’t?
This whole AI thing is fucking cooked.
It’s okay, the author of the article didn’t actually read (or understand) the Copyright Office’s recommendations. They are:
Pretty much everything the article’s author stated is contradicted by the above.
i’m not familiar with windowscentral.com.
what’s the over-under on the article being AI slop too?
It doesn’t read like AI to me, but their takeaways about copyright made me think the author had read an AI summary rather than the actual source material.
i agree at first glance, but being confidently incorrect (especially getting the source material correct but drawing a dead wrong conclusion) is sort of a hallmark of the model.
a couple years ago i was pretty good at spotting AI work but it does get harder as time goes on.