The Office recognizes that AI-generated works implicate other copyright issues not addressed in this statement. It has launched an agency-wide initiative to delve into a wide range of these issues.
Among other things, the Office intends to publish a notice of inquiry later this year seeking public input on additional legal and policy topics, including how the law should apply to the use of copyrighted works in AI training and the resulting treatment of outputs.
in the current edition of the Compendium, the Office states that “to qualify as a work of `authorship' a work must be created by a human being” and that it “will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.”
The Court defined an “author” as “he to whom anything owes its origin; originator; maker; one who completes a work of science or literature.” [14] It repeatedly referred to such “authors” as human, describing authors as a class of “persons” [15] and a copyright as “the exclusive right of a man to the production of his own genius or intellect.” [16]
The Ninth Circuit has held that a book containing words “authored by non-human spiritual beings” can only qualify for copyright protection if there is “human selection and arrangement of the revelations.”
For example, if a user instructs a text-generating technology to “write a poem about copyright law in the style of William Shakespeare,” she can expect the system to generate text that is recognizable as a poem, mentions copyright, and resembles Shakespeare's style.[29]
But the technology will decide the rhyming pattern, the words in each line, and the structure of the text.When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship.As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.
In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” [33]
Or an artist may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection.[34] In these cases, copyright will only protect the human-authored aspects of the work, which are “independent of” and do “not affect” the copyright status of the AI-generated material itself.[35]
In each case, what matters is the extent to which the human had creative control over the work's expression and “actually formed” the traditional elements of authorship.[37]
三月中美國版權局關於AI生成內容的公告：
英文版
估狗翻譯中文版
當AI技術決定其輸出的表達元素時，生成的材料不是人類創作的產物。[31]
因此，該材料不受版權保護，必須在註冊申請中聲明棄權。[32]
這個「選擇或安排」就很有趣了，包括AI繪圖爭議的代表作太空歌劇院（據說從海量成圖中篩選後微調），以及像是現在Stable Diffusion使用Controlnet對成圖加上許多的介入與控制，大概都還是未來爭議的重點。
不過，隨便下幾個關鍵字、再隨手挑一張結果，這種方式毫無疑問不會有版權是沒有疑問的。