Copyright to AI-generated content

[Dani]

I forget if this question has been asked before. Please forgive me if it has and point a link to it. However, now that AI-generated content has been out for quite some time, what are people's positions on who owns the copyright to what it generates? Is AI just a tool? Is the real copyright on the prompts that the humans wrote to make it spit out what it did?

[SCBWV]

I believe the US Copyright Office ruled that there has to be some human element to be eligible for copyright. They've also issues a "pre-publication" report on the legality of training AI models on copyrighted works. I agree with the required human element. I'm not sure about the training issue. It seems to me that would be someone gaining benefit from someone else's work, but where would that restriction end?

[Dani]

I believe the US Copyright Office ruled that there has to be some human element to be eligible for copyright.

That’s what I mean about a tool though. ChatGPT can be thought of as a tool that gives output entirely based on how the human prompts it. How is that different from graphics created with Adobe Illustrator? The graphics created are from the combination of the sophistication of the application developers who wrote the software and the humans using the software. Similar could be said for developers writing ChatGPT but the humans writing out the perfect prompts to get it to generate whatever it is that it created.

[Salem]

How are a sequence of prompt words to chatgpt to achieve a result any different from the sequence of words in a computer programming language to achieve a result.

The patent system is a crap shoot as well.
Someone can invent something that solves 99% of a new problem, but the person who then adds the final 1% that makes it viable will ride off into the sunset with 100% of the benefits, while the author of the original work dies in the poorhouse.

[Dani]

How are a sequence of prompt words to chatgpt to achieve a result any different from the sequence of words in a computer programming language to achieve a result.

That seems a bit like what I'm saying, no? I think the argument is that whether you are "programming" the AI via prompt engineering, or if you are simply utilizing the AI as designed to produce results. In the case of the latter, I would argue that someone is simply utilizing Adobe Photoshop as designed to create unique art owned by the end-user of the application.

The patent system is a crap shoot as well.

I have 3 patents on user matching across social networks and just no resources to defend my patents against companies such as LinkedIn that are for sure breaching.