It begins by asking “whether the `work' is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.” [23]

In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author's “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” [24]

The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work.[25] This is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry.

That's the rest of what you posted. I guess you just didn't read it, right? Even if it comes right after and is part of the same paragraph. What a joke.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I clarified this a bit in a follow-up comment, but my first comment was simplifying for the sake of countering:

[it's not in the public domain] because the actual human work that went into creating it was done by the owner of the AI Model and whatever they trained on.

Their claim that the copyright for AI-generated works belongs to the model creator and the authors of the training material – and is never in the public domain – is patent, easily disprovable nonsense.

Yes, I understand it's more nuanced than what I said. No, it's not nuanced in their favor. No, I'm not diving into that with a pathological liar (see their other comments) when it's immaterial to my rebuttal of their bullshit claim. I guess you just didn't read the claim I was addressing?