As other's have pointed out, this case is really about refusing to allow an LLM to be recognised as the author. The person using the LLM waived any right to be recognised as the author.

Its also US only. Other countries will differ. This means you can only rely on this ruling at all for something you are distributing only in the US. Might be OK for art, definitely not for most software. Very definitely not OK for a software library.

For example UK law specifically says "In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/9

▲

jacquesm 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The person using the LLM waived any right to be recognised as the author.

They can't waive their liability from being identified as an infringer though.

▲

bakugo 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.

This seems extremely vague. One could argue that any part of the pipeline counts as an "arrangement necessary for the creation of the work", so who is the author? The prompter, the creator of the model, or the creator of the training data?

	▲	graemep 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The courts will have to settle that according to circumstances. I think it is likely to be the prompter, and in some cases the creator of the training data as well. The creator of the model will have copyright on the model, but unlikely to have copyright on its outputs (any more than the writer of a compiler has copyright on its output).