The Office concludes that, given current generally available technology, prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output.
I'm not a lawyer either but if/when something like this goes to court the conclusion of the US Copyright Office is probably going to play a part.
What I was able to skim is a bit more complex like that. Page 42 of Part 2 says using it "as a tool" produces copyrightable works:
> As described above, in many circumstances these outputs will be copyrightable in whole or in part—where AI is used as a tool, and where a human has been able to determine the expressive elements they contain. Prompts alone, however, at this stage are unlikely to satisfy those requirements.
Then, since this stuff is changing a lot, they hedge with:
> The Office continues to monitor technological and legal developments to evaluate any need for a different approach.
In this case? Social Network protocol scene but generally the open source world (and every other niche interest in existence) has it's own bouts with scene drama.
Most usage of Bitcoin ATMs (they're actually "reverse ATMs"0 in America is for these scams. Eliminating them would be a great start; they really have no legitimate purpose.
A while ago, some police department simply seized them and the cash inside and reimbursed victims with the proceeds thereof.
<https://www.copyright.gov/ai/>
<https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...>
I'm not a lawyer either but if/when something like this goes to court the conclusion of the US Copyright Office is probably going to play a part.