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 7 months ago (1 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 7 months ago (1 children)

The law says human creative expression

[–] kernelle@0d.gs 1 points 7 months ago

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