linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9613a8a7b9fd77a48667a39ffde9e92b361c4fd1.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 17:07:58 -0500
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, "H. Peter Anvin"
 <hpa@...or.com>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Laurent Pinchart
 <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>, Christian Brauner
 <brauner@...nel.org>,  Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Vlastimil
 Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,  "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "workflows@...r.kernel.org"
 <workflows@...r.kernel.org>, "ksummit@...ts.linux.dev"
 <ksummit@...ts.linux.dev>,  "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,  Jonathan
 Corbet <corbet@....net>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan
 <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: Provide guidelines for
 tool-generated content

On Mon, 2025-11-10 at 21:52 +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > I believe that's what is currently being argued in court. If AI is
> > trained on human content and prints out something based on it, is
> > it a non-human creation?

So far (Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta) the decisions have been
that the output is transformative enough that that is, in fact, an
independent creation.

> >   This isn't a case of a monkey taking a selfie, where the
> > content provider is clearly non-human. This is a machine that uses
> > human created content to derive new creations.
> 
> If the output were deemed copyrightable, who should own that
> copyright?
> 
> Option 1 is "The human that crafted the prompt to generate it"

This is possible, but so far hasn't been argued.

> 
> Option 2 is "The corporation that spent vast resources to create that
> AI model"

This would require a change of law in the US to allow a non-human
content creator to hold copyright; absent that there's nothing
copyrightable the corporation can lay claim to (not that the AI
industry might not be motivated to seek this eventually if they have
trouble monetizing AI).

> Option 3 is "The owners of the copyrighted material used to train the
> AI".

This is the derivative of training argument which has so far failed.

Regards,

James