Comment by sva_

14 days ago

> Content that is entirely generated [...]

Take note of the qualifier entirely. If you're working with an agent steering it to produce the results you want, it would be an entirely different story.

14 comments

sva_

Reply
pizzly  14 days ago

Wheres the limit. Would a prompt "Create a system that does x" and no other feedback count? Or do need to do 10 prompts to steer your agent to the results you want. What about just 1 additional prompt. Somewhere there will be a line.

  • oblio  14 days ago

    Legal systems are fuzzy. The limit will be what courtrooms decide. There will never be a ">75% of content" law, everything will be left to interpretation, laws are not source code.

dijksterhuis  14 days ago

a bit further down ...

> Neither mere prompting nor the selection between several AI suggestions is sufficient as a human creative contribution.

which reads like you actually have to contribute by modifying the output from the system, i.e. prompts/inputs to the system do not count as a human contribution.

  • dgellow  14 days ago

    If you modify the output, you don’t magically get copyright on the whole output, only the section you modified

    • dijksterhuis  14 days ago

      if you modify enough of the output as to make it unrecognizable as the machine output -- that's a new work created by a human. i.e. you don't have to change every line.

      same thing applies to sampling in music. if i change enough of a sample as to make it unrecognizable, then i don't need to worry about registering/licensing the sample.

      3 replies →

enquirewithin  14 days ago

More importantly, take note of:

> Munich Local Court has held that

Local Court in Germany is the equivalent of the Magistrates Court in the UK or Australia.

Definitely not the arbiter of ultimate truth.

koolala  14 days ago

Is working with an agent different than constantly editing an image with fine tuning prompts? Both can be entirely generated.