Its core message? Human creativity remains the foundation of US copyright law \u2013 and AI-generated material, on its own, doesn\u2019t qualify.<\/span><\/p>\n The Office was unambiguous. Prompts alone, no matter how detailed or imaginative, are not enough. What matters is authorship, and authorship must involve human originality.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n If a person curates, edits, or meaningfully transforms an AI output, that contribution may be protected. But the machine\u2019s output itself? No.<\/span><\/p>\n In practice, this means that someone who generates an image using a text prompt likely doesn\u2019t own it in the traditional sense.<\/span><\/p>\n The report outlines three narrow scenarios in which copyright might apply: when AI is used assistively, when original human work is perceptibly incorporated, or when a human selects and arranges AI-generated elements in a creative way. <\/span><\/p>\n Sounds generous in some ways, but the fact remains that courts have consistently rejected copyright claims over purely machine-made works, and this report affirms that position.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Copyright Office likens prompts to giving instructions to a photographer: they might influence the result, but they don\u2019t rise to the level of authorship.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n But just as that line was being redrawn in Washington, OpenAI was urging lawmakers in the UK to take a different path.<\/span><\/p>\n On Wednesday, the company <\/span>submitted its formal response<\/span><\/a> to the UK government\u2019s AI and copyright consultation.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n OpenAI argues for a \u201cbroad text and data mining exception\u201d \u2013 a legal framework that would allow AI developers to train on publicly available data without first seeking permission from rights holders.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The idea is to create a pro-innovation environment that would attract AI investment and development. In effect, let the machines read everything, unless someone explicitly opts out. <\/span>It\u2019s a stance that puts OpenAI firmly at odds with many in the creative sector, where alarm bells have been ringing for months.<\/span><\/p>\n Artists, authors, and publishers see the proposed exception as a backdoor license to scrape the web, turning years of human work into fuel for algorithmic engines. <\/span><\/p>\n Critics argue that even an opt-out model places the burden on creators, not companies, and risks eroding the already fragile economics of professional content.<\/span><\/p>\n Chucked into this copyright melting pot was the release of a <\/span>nieuw onderzoek<\/span><\/a> this week from the AI Disclosures Project, which claims that OpenAI\u2019s newest model, GPT-4o, shows a suspiciously high recognition of paywalled content. <\/span><\/p>\n And all of this came on the heels of a much more public \u2013 and wildly popular \u2013 example of AI\u2019s blurred boundaries: the Studio Ghibli trend.<\/p>\n Over the weekend, OpenAI\u2019s image generator, newly improved in ChatGPT, went viral<\/a> for its ability to transform selfies into Ghibli scenes \u2013 despite the studio\u2019s co-founder publicly stating he hated AI back in 2016.<\/span><\/p>\n it’s super fun seeing people love images in chatgpt.<\/p>\n but our GPUs are melting.<\/p>\n we are going to temporarily introduce some rate limits while we work on making it more efficient. hopefully won’t be long!<\/p>\n chatgpt free tier will get 3 generations per day soon.<\/p>\n - Sam Altman<\/span><\/span><\/span> (@sama) March 27, 2025<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n![\"OpenAI\"](\"https:\/\/dailyai.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Screenshot-2025-04-03-192317.png\")
\n