@arstechnica if she rewrote every sentence in the book and therefore she deserves the copyright, students rewriting every sentence in an essay they copy from someone else should not be considered plagiarism.
And if she's going to spend that much energy and effort that every sentence is rewritten, just write the thing in the first place ffs.
@arstechnica lol @ her writing about gender inclusivity and her disabilities while using a tool that's stolen from countless women and disabled people to build its datasets.
"...the actual sentences and paragraphs themselves are not copyrighted and could theoretically be rearranged and republished as a different book."
Who wants to get ChatGPT to reorganize this text a 1000x and sell all the versions? (Not that anyone wants to read this BS.) For some reason, I think Shupe wouldn't like that.
@arstechnica I am genuinely confused as to why this author believes creating this type of edge case is helpful overall (to copyright or to them individually), if the result is a ruling of non-authorship and an invitation to someone else to flaunt the outcome by creating the very work which is permissible but at odds with ownership by the original “author”. Doesn't feel very clever strategically.
“Shupe could be considered the author of “selection, coordination, and arrangement of text generated by artificial intelligence,” the agency wrote, backdating her copyright registration to October 10, 2023, the day that Shupe had originally attempted to register her work. That gives her authorship of the work overall, prohibiting unauthorized wholecloth reproduction of the entire book, but not copyright protection over the actual sentences of the novel.”
@arstechnica The fact that she furthers the goals of the biggest thieves in human history like Altman, Nadella and Musk doesn't seem of interest to her. Instead she obviously enjoys the idea of attacking the Copyright Office. Because clearly they are the baddies for not allowing her to copyright AI regurgitations.