> If it isn't "just" a tool, then it did engage in copyright infringement
Copyright infringement is a thing humans do. It's not a human.
Just like how the photos taken by a monkey with a camera have no copyright. Human law binds humans.
Copyright infringement is a thing humans do. It's not a human.
Just like how the photos taken by a monkey with a camera have no copyright. Human law binds humans.
If we are saying AI is "more than a tool", which seems to be the case courts are leaning since they've ruled AI output without direct human involvement is not copyrightable[0], then the above seems like it would be entirely legal.
Even if the final output doesn't have copyright protection it might still be copyright violation. I think it could be reasonable to have work that itself violates copyright when distributed even if it does not have copy right itself.