But it doesn't say it is public domain nor invalidate the contract between the user. It also does not clearly define how much human element does or does not make it copyrightable.

The only two examples in the text were AI Generated Images.

Based on these developments, the Office concludes that public guidance is needed on the registration of works containing AI-generated content. This statement of policy describes how the Office applies copyright law's human authorship requirement to applications to register such works and provides guidance to applicants.

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.

Also, Not Copyrightable != Public Domain

For example, any new kind of wrench is not copyrightable either but other types of property laws like Patents and Licensure apply to their creation.

My advice, and I say this from a place of goodwill and empathy, is that nobody should use slop code nor treat it as their own code because until congress and legislative bodies around the world clarify this it is not factual.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 0 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Not Copyrightable != Public Domain

Not being under copyright means it is in the public domain. That's literally the entire definition.

The public domain is not a place. A work of authorship is in the “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner.

invalidate the contract between the user.

Why do you keep bringing this up? Nobody else here cares and this claim isn't in dispute - open source software can and is licensed all the time. That doesn't change your initial claims about the output from Generative AI not being able to be held under copyright.

The only two examples in the text were AI Generated Images.

Man, it sure is weird how you ignore that they explicitly clarify that this applies to generated text too:

If a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it. For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user.

God this is satisfying. Thank you for being like this.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Being in the public domain means being there in perpetuity. The Copyright Office is rejecting generated image applications while asking for future legislature to clarify.

Do not use slop code.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

Being in the public domain means being there in perpetuity.

Nope!

One of its effects is to give United States copyright protection to foreign works that had previously been in the public domain in the United States.

It's uncommon but public domain works can absolutely have their copyright restored.