Fonte: web page dell’Ufficio .
Il passo interessante è sub III:
<<It begins by asking ‘‘whether the ‘work’ is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely beingan assisting instrument, or whether thetraditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musicalexpression or elements of selection,arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.’’ In the case of works containing AI-generated material, theOffice will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of‘‘mechanical reproduction’’ or instead of an author’s ‘‘own original mentalconception, to which [the author] gave visible form.’’ The answer will depend on the circumstances,particularly how the AI tool operatesand how it was used to create the final work. This is necessarily a case-by case inquiry. 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.
Based on the Office’s understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material.
Instead,these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist—they identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented in its output.
Forexample, if a user instructs a text generating technology to ‘‘write a poem about copyright law in the style ofWilliam Shakespeare,’’ she can expect the system to generate text that is recognizable as a poem, mentions copyright, and resembles Shakespeare’s style. But the technology will decide the rhyming pattern, the words in each line, and the structure of the text.
When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship. As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.
In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that ‘‘the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.’’ Or anartist may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection. In these cases, copyright will only protect the human-authored aspects of the work, which are ‘‘independent of’’ and do ‘‘not affect’’ the copyright status of the AI-generated material itself>>
Mi pare affermazione di buon senso.