Yes, as the other commenter said, in most jurisdictions (i think China is the only exception?), generative AI outputs (this covers more than LLMs, like diffusers and other modern image generators) are not eligible for copyright. However, while a human made arrangement of the outputs gets copyright protection, in the US at least, it is a very narrow scope of protection, literally only a direct copy/paste of large swaths, and doesn’t extend to the individual AI generated components.
- 0 posts
- 4 comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 26th, 2025
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
- 7 days
Technology@lemmy.world•Waymo’s driverless cars crash way less often than humans: reportbyFatCrab@slrpnk.netEnglish
11 daysThat isn’t really what that article says. It says that in edge cases, remote workers (mostly in the Philippines) give additional contextual inputs to the autopilot. There are some outstanding issues with waymos, especially around getting stuck idling or infinite loops at construction sites, but really just being remotely operated is not one of them.
Technology@lemmy.world•Anthropic to pay $1.5 billion copyright settlement to authors, publishersbyFatCrab@slrpnk.netEnglish
13 daysThia is to settle their infringement from when they literally torrented giant chunks of their training corpus. It has nothing to do with any sort of infringement theory based on encoding learning from material but just old fashioned liability for flagrant piracy.

Yes, but they don’t make news or to the top of lemmy for very long ever. Paizo is an example of a relatively established company that welcomed unionization. I’m sure there are others.