The practical implication is you can't copyright something that your AI generated. As the article notes, copyright applications are also being rejected in cases where a human asserts authorship over an AI generated work.
No, its not.
This is not a case of the human trying to claim copyright as the author of a work made using AI tools.
> As the article notes, copyright applications are also being rejected in cases where a human asserts authorship over an AI generated work.
That is true (although at least one has been accepted by the copyright office, IIRC), but it is not an outcome of this case (even in the sense that this ruling might support it) because this case does not concern human claims of authorship at all. It concerns undisputed solely-AI creation.
Seems like a loophole, if I generate synthetic data with a model trained on copyrighted works, the synthetic data is copyright free? So I can later train models on it?
But philosophically, I wonder if it's allright to block that, it techincally follows the definition of copyright. It does not carry the expression, but borrows abstractions and facts. That's exactly what is allowed.
If we move to block synthetic data, then anyone can be accused of infringement when they reuse abstractions learned somewhere else. Creativity would not be possible.
On the other hand models trained on synthetic data will never regurgitate the originals because they never saw them.
If you are a human who creatively uses a tool to generate something, you’d get copyright protection.