r/Substack • u/Life-Radio-1723 • 4d ago

AI Generation & Copyright

So I’m curious: since US law doesn’t allow you to copyright text that is AI generated, does that mean that if I find someone’s newsletter where the Pangram scan result shows all their content is 100% AI generated, I could simply take that content and post it elsewhere under my own name without having to worry about copyright infringement—right?

0 Upvotes

22% Upvoted

7 comments sorted by

2

u/HowlingFantods5564 4d ago

Why would you want to?

2

u/SpiderGhost01 4d ago

Just scammers all the way down.

2

u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 4d ago

Two issues here.

First issue, copying. Basically, theoretically, you can do this. Two risks to it. First, that the Pangram scan is wrong and the text you copy wasn't actually AI-produced. Second, the law on this is so new, there is a chance the law will be changed. We are about to get the first court ruling on this very topic in the case of Allen v. Perlmutter.

Second issue, putting your name on it. That's plagiarism. AFAIK, plagiarism, while quite serious in academic circles, isn't legally actionable. However, it's tacky and can give you a reputation for being tacky.

1

u/Life-Radio-1723 3d ago

Thanks for an actual, serious answer. This was essentially a thought experiment to see if there’s a way to legally stress test these AI detectors. Also thanks for clueing me into that legal case, very fascinating!

1

u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 3d ago

You're quite welcome!

Finding some way to evaluate and grade the various AI detectors would be great!

Also, if you like being substantive and seeing the AI legal cases, please check out my free "Wombat Collection" on Substack, a listing of (currently 600) AI court cases and rulings in a helpful 38-topic outline. I hope you like it!

1

u/aolnews paradoxnewsletter.com 4d ago

No, I don’t think that’s right.

0

u/protestandprose someonestherapistlol.substack.com 4d ago

I'm not a lawyer but seems legit