charonn0

While the wikipedia page you cite does have a section heading called "1945-1992", that's only because it uses WW2 and the EU treaty as endpoints. Not because laws were being passed in 1945. Moreover, the cited page doesn't list country-level laws in 1945-1992, it lists international treaties; and the earliest listed treaty is from 1953.

My comment is mild compared to the OP.

Google tells me that the US is ranked #5 in the world behind Japan, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands.

I get that Europe is pretty good too, but the OP makes it sound like America is a nightmare for the disabled.

You do see my point, you just don't like it.

The point is America is taking things we’re good at and rolling them back. It loses its point if you pick something we’ve always been bad at.

That seems backwards and ridiculous to me.

If OpenAI owns a Copyright on the output of their LLMs, then I side with the NYT.

If the output is public domain--that is you or I could use it commercially without OpenAI's permission--then I side with OpenAI.

Sort of like how a spell checker works. The dictionary is Copyrighted, the spell check software is Copyrighted, but using it on your document doesn't grant the spell check vendor any Copyright over it.

I think this strikes a reasonable balance between creators' IP rights, AI companies' interest in expansion, and the public interest in having these tools at our disposal. So, in my scheme, either creators get a royalty, or the LLM company doesn't get to Copyright the outputs. I could even see different AI companies going down different paths and offering different kinds of service based on that distinction.