Not necessarily, if a model is public domain, there could still be a lot of proprietary elements used in interpreting that model and actually running it. If you own the hardware and generate something using AI, I'd say the copyright goes to you. You use AI as the brush to paint your painting and the painting belongs to you, but if a company allows you to use their canvas and their painting tools, it should go to them.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 3 points 8 months ago (3 children)

The existing legal precedence in most places is that most use of ML doesn't count as human expression and doesn't have copyright protection. You have to have significant control over the creation of the output to have copyright (the easiest workaround is simply manually modifying the ML output and then only releasing the modified version)

[–] kernelle@0d.gs 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The existing legal precedence

I know that's how law works, but there is no precedent for AI at this scale and will only get worse. What if AI gains full sentience? Are they a legally recognised person? Do they have rights and do they not own the copyright themselves? All very good questions with no precedent in law.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The law says human creative expression

[–] kernelle@0d.gs 1 points 8 months ago

At what point does human creative expression become a sentient being?

load more comments (12 replies)