[rswail]

Can the output of the service be licensed? A bit like the AGPL, you're licensed to use/reuse/derive new works.

So if it's distributed outside of the license, that's subject to contractual penalties? I guess that's what all the "wrapper" SaaS businesses will do.

Read that report, it defined the issues and the boundaries well, for the current generation of AI tools. As they develop and expand, it's going to get interesting, especially if robotics/3d printing etc get involved.

If I use an Optimus Prime to help create art, similar to Andy Warhol's "factory", do I own the copyright on the completed work?

If a person uses AI to generate work that ends up being patentable, are patents also not available?

[marcus_holmes]

There's already been a case where an artist generated art using an LLM, and could not claim copyright on it [0]. Though the guy was torpedoing his own case by claiming the machine created the entire thing. The courts are supporting copyright claims when using an LLM as a tool to support human effort.

All software licensing depends on copyright. If no-one owns the copyright than it can't be licensed; it's in the public domain immediately and irrevocably.

Of course, if you rip off someone else's work, and they DMCA you, then you might need to prove that they generated the entire thing using an LLM with zero human input. Though there's plenty of folks posting blog posts claiming that that's their process, so it might not be that hard.

Patents are different. For a start they cost money and effort to get. And there are lots of rules around how they're applied and how you can defend them. Very different from copyright.

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/19/ai-art-cannot-be-copyrighted...