Comment by protocolture

Depends on the scale of LLM involvement, the copyright office left a pretty big carve out for things that are human sourced and then modified by LLM, or the reverse, LLM output thats modified by human intention. (They had to do this because there are already pseudo random elements to digital artwork, like say, render clouds and render noise, that might otherwise poison an artwork). In fact I dont think this has been tested with Highlight area > Prompt a change to this area of the image workflows.

They also mention in the same document that were LLMs to more closely approximate deterministic tools, they would be open to reevaluating. That is Requesting X gets X without substantial wiggle room.

I dont think that last part has been tested with an extremely large set of prompts and human generated input to create a more deterministic output. Even outside of code, where you see large prompts, creative writing LLM tools, NovelAI or Sudowrite for instance can have pages and pages of spec for the LLM, sometimes close to 50% of the size of the final output.

Then there's testing, review etc, human processes confirming that the output meets spec, updating it where needed intelligently.

There are also foreign courts, with similar rules about human intention, that have found in favor of prompts only, where it could be demonstrated that multiple rounds of prompts were used to refine the image.

I wouldnt call this settled at all tbh. And to be honest, a lot of this doesnt require exposure. you dont need to own up to LLM use in a lot of settings, proving LLM use is so difficult its easy to jump up the ladder from LLM (100%) to LLM (50%) and ultimately claim ownership.

The people who will get busted for this are basically just super lazy leaving ChatGPT responses in, failing to pay an editor, failing to modify images for anything more than layouts.