~$|>>> Onlyfans! <<<|$~

deleted by creator

Hey lets not forget Ghislaine Maxwell’s contributions to fascism here…

For sure! Decent people gotta stick up for each other on here, especially in the face of such prolific (and increasingly amusing) misinformation.

That person was also me, funnily enough!

since this is the copyright office it has no bearing on other types of established property such as license or patent law

Buddy, patents are public domain. That’s the whole point of a patent.

As part of the terms of granting the patent to the inventor, patents are published into the public domain.

the office admits they are waiting for public input (the legislative body) on the matter

No they don’t - they’ve published their current rules and state that those rules are their interpretation and those rules will stand until and unless further rulings or legislation comes out to change the situation. You know, how laws work?

Being in the public domain means being there in perpetuity.

Nope!

One of its effects is to give United States copyright protection to foreign works that had previously been in the public domain in the United States.

It’s uncommon but public domain works can absolutely have their copyright restored.

No, it’s from wikipedia.

Not Copyrightable != Public Domain

Not being under copyright means it is in the public domain. That’s literally the entire definition.

The public domain is not a place. A work of authorship is in the “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner.

invalidate the contract between the user.

Why do you keep bringing this up? Nobody else here cares and this claim isn’t in dispute - open source software can and is licensed all the time. That doesn’t change your initial claims about the output from Generative AI not being able to be held under copyright.

The only two examples in the text were AI Generated Images.

Man, it sure is weird how you ignore that they explicitly clarify that this applies to generated text too:

If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it. For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt  from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user.

God this is satisfying. Thank you for being like this.

Nope, that’s exactly what it means.

Some works are not covered by a country’s copyright laws, and are therefore in the public domain; for example, in the United States, items excluded from copyright include the formulae of Newtonian physics and cooking recipes.

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.

I mean sure you can ignore the court ruling, but here’s the copyright office’s guidance (which they also provided later in an edit) and it clarifies that AI generated work is not eligible for copyright

When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship.[31]
As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.[32]

You already responded to it?

Aight and the proof already provided shows that it is in fact considered to be in the public domain, which proves you’re wrong.

Er, no - about it not being public domain. That’s the claim you made that has been shown to be false. Trying to make it about AI being bad is the walking back.

No it’s that you’re trying to walk back a provably false claim and then deflect the claims by pretending the people calling you out are doing so because they like AI instead of, you know, valuing the truth.

There’s shitloads of AIs reading the fediverse, too. Absolutely doing the same infomining as the discord age bot - but it’s not the moderators doing it, at least.

And compounding the issue is that there isn’t a better alternative to discord in terms of feature set and accessibility. Matrix is the closest, but its just… not there yet. There’s no option for people who care about privacy that isn’t a steep downgrade, and that just sucks.

How often do you check the summaries? Real question, I’ve used similar tools and the accuracy to what it’s citing has been hilariously bad. Be cool if there was a tool out there that was bucking the trend.

Strangest feeling of deja vu…

Aii

Don’t get too excited folks, Nadella’s never been right about anything before…