I would argue the person prompting the LLM and piecing it all together is still a human author. The LLM is just a tool. The average person cannot sit down and create a project with an LLM, so the human is still a key factor. To say there is no human would be similar to saying those who use Copilot are not authoring their code, when clearly there is a curator/director managing what the AI models produce. Auditing and testing and packaging the code, too, is an important part of the process.
It would just depend on what the license for the LLM tool (if any) you're using is I think, right? There are no laws about AI generation and copyright yet that I know about. If what you're suggesting is true then does Microsoft word own everyone's novels and are the originator of patents for the last 20 years? Surely government will do a better job than DMCA even though they're more corrupt and captured now /s
Quoting the judgement:
"only works created by a human can be copyrighted under United States law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention"
Clearly, the machine in question is responding to human prompts. The LLM didn't create this program on its own.
And wouldn't have finished on its own. Sometimes even other models or chats with more fine tuned context just don't spot the mistakes within n iterations. The human needs to, quite annoyed I must say, take a closer look herself. "What did you LLM do and how does it work?" Then you specify what must be done or do it yourself because you can't remember the term which would make the LLM find the right symbols, and describing the term takes as long as fixing the issue yourself. This applies more to new kids on the block than to experienced devs, depending on the complexity of the subject, of course, but is relevant for both because the creation, the final product, belongs to the human, as does the LLM. My chat, my LLM, my copyright. If it ever became important, I'd raise an army against their lawyers.
Well, I am paying for it, the subscription and or the API calls. And the chat is the service I and other users, including B2B, paid for. Dev and server costs are covered by that, theoretically and practically, because investors get what they paid for as well.
The LLM is instructed by my prompts. I'm giving the directions. At some points, the LLM will dynamically update the weights based on my input, it's knowledge being all that is in the higher public domain, published human knowledge. My communication is being collected to my own, and others, future advantage, which would not be possible if we didn't use the LLM. The devs can't make it much further without the user. The devs couldn't make it anywhere without the training data. 'My LLM' is the current chat window, whatevers' coming out of it, I am responsible for that, not the company who created it, and if I am responsible, I have to own it, just like I own the things 'my child' creates until that child is ready to own it's responsibility itself.
Ah so all Legal disputes around AI are completely shut and closed cases?
I think it’s rather we have a very small number of reference cases from the past, but since things changed dramatically since then everything is still up in the air
> the question whether machines can hold copyright is decisively shut and closed
That's just a small part of the question. Some of the questions we still need answers for are:
1) If ChatGPT produces an answer that is very similar to something it was trained on, can you use that answer? Or do you need a license from the original author? If you do need a license, how do you figure out if an answer is close enough to some original work to require a license? How much effort can we expect a user of an LLM to put into searching for original sources? If you can't identify sources, can you use an LLM at all?
2) Is it even allowed to train an LLM on data without asking for permission?
3) Is prompting an LLM a creative act? Is ChatGPT just a tool like a typewriter? If you type a poem on a typewriter, no sane person would consider the typewriter the copyright holder. So shouldn't we consider the person prompting the LLM the author?
Those questions are all interesting in themselves, but utterly irrelevant here.
The first one asks if someone else than the „prompter“ should have copyright.
The second one asks about other people‘s copyright.
The third one is answered by case law, including the Monkey Selfie case. The wildlife photography setup is very much comparable to your typewriter there.
If there's a thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters, and they all write a single page to a thousand-page epic, is the scientist allowed to copyright and sell it as a book?
Taken alone, it is concise, correct, and well-cited. It does lack a crux, though.
But in context, seeing the commenter's previous comment, there is an implied Cruz that is the opposite of the truth, since a reader assumes that any comment is implicitly in support of the commenter's previous comment, and in opposition to the proximate comment it is in reply to, unless otherwise indicated.
He said ChatGPT so LLM created. “Fair use” may be the current legal defense, but who knows if or what Congress will do. The lobbying power is definitely in the LLM owners and not copyright holders or creatives.
But there’s a non-zero chance LLMs won’t face a class action lawsuit.
