Re: [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Mon, 2025-11-10 at 21:52 +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > I believe that's what is currently being argued in court. If AI is
> > trained on human content and prints out something based on it, is
> > it a non-human creation?

So far (Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta) the decisions have been
that the output is transformative enough that that is, in fact, an
independent creation.

> >   This isn't a case of a monkey taking a selfie, where the
> > content provider is clearly non-human. This is a machine that uses
> > human created content to derive new creations.
> 
> If the output were deemed copyrightable, who should own that
> copyright?
> 
> Option 1 is "The human that crafted the prompt to generate it"

This is possible, but so far hasn't been argued.

> 
> Option 2 is "The corporation that spent vast resources to create that
> AI model"

This would require a change of law in the US to allow a non-human
content creator to hold copyright; absent that there's nothing
copyrightable the corporation can lay claim to (not that the AI
industry might not be motivated to seek this eventually if they have
trouble monetizing AI).

> Option 3 is "The owners of the copyrighted material used to train the
> AI".

This is the derivative of training argument which has so far failed.

Regards,

James