>You own what you produce with it too
As I understand it, this is incorrect - all of these outputs are the creations of a machine, and as such are not eligible for copyright protection
As I understand it, this is incorrect - all of these outputs are the creations of a machine, and as such are not eligible for copyright protection
"Creations of a machine" is meaningless. Machines are tools we use to be creative, even if we're getting some things out that we do not expect. When a 3D program renders light into a scene, does that mean the image is not copyrightable?
I don't see where in your link it says, as GP did, that "creations of a machine [...] are not eligible for copyright protection."
The guidance says that the author must be human, but that "In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author’s “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.”
The latter is copyrightable.
"This policy does not mean that technological tools cannot be part of the creative process. "
1. e.g. https://boingboing.net/2023/08/21/federal-judge-says-ai-gene...
Anyway, that may not matter - I think what people are looking for here is the absence of being sued by someone else, not the ability to sue someone else. If I generate an image to put in my companies annual report, I'm not worried about someone else copying the image somewhere else.