David, the work being referred to in this article is a picture. I can understand how a picture (or a song generated with ai singers using ai generated lyrics) could be more difficult to copyright (I would contest that there was still some human guiding hand in the prompt used to generate the work?)
That's a question that wasn't addressed, as the scope of the ruling was limited to a finding of law whether or not an AI could hold a copyright.
You're suggesting that the inputs to an AI by a human give the
human some ownership of the copyright of the output. But even if a prompt is hyper-specific, I can think of two impediments.
First, the idea expressed in the prompt is unlikely to express an "original" idea. For example,
A happy couple walking through a rose garden on a sunny day is enough to generate an image or song, but the idea expressed in the prompt is unlikely to be an expression that's original enough to be considered copyrightable.
Second, the AI can churn out dozens of songs with this prompt, each one different. That would show that although the work was guided by a specific prompt, the part that makes the work "original" comes from the AI, not the human. And the court has ruled that an AI can't be assigned a copyright.
But questions along these lines will no doubt be litigated in the future.
Ai generated lyrics are just text in a notepad and can easily be slightly modified or completely rewritten before being turned into a song. The human hand is certainly involved in the creation of the melody.
I suspect the question turns on how transformative the human's input was.
I would wonder why anybody would try to copyright ai generated lyrics.
I can only think of two motivations:
- To monetize the lyric; and
- To prevent other people from using the lyric
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean