Drip of Soul to the Pufferfish

1 files changed, 31 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/microblog/index.html b/microblog/index.html
index 55d33be..7990586 100644
--- a/microblog/index.html
+++ b/microblog/index.html
@@ -19,6 +19,37 @@
 		</p>
 		<hr />
 		-->
+		<p id="38">
+		我的灵魂，<br />
+		出<br />
+		窍<br />
+		凭空蒸发消失。<br />
+		穿上刺猬的皮，<br />
+		吞掉河豚的肝。<br />
+		吞噬<br />
+		<br />
+		吞噬。<br />
+		<br />
+		浸润。<br />
+		<br />
+		自己用独角兽的肉体搭建出的城堡<br />
+		摧毁，让其分崩离析<br />
+		麻木不仁地破坏<br />
+		我才不会失去一切<br />
+		<br />
+		一滴滴血，多么具体<br />
+		<br />
+		全身皮肤析出点滴的脓<br />
+		点缀着我令人恶心的体毛<br />
+		我内心却依然是颗黑洞<br />
+		祂让自己枯竭，而又迭代<br />
+		失去所谓的理性<br />
+		毁灭而不是失去，<br />
+		<br />
+		一切。
+		<a href="https://www.andrewyu.org/microblog/#38">&</a>
+		</p>
+		<hr />
 		<p id="37">
 		In Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023), the Federal District Court for D.C. ruled that "Underlying that adaptability, however, has been a consistent understanding that human creativity is the sine qua non at the core of copyrightability". 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) says that "Copyright protection subsists [...] in original works [...] either directly or with the aid of a machine or device".<br />My question is outside of the scope of this lawsuit: do prompts to AI count as a human using the "aid of a machine or device" to create a creative work? Or, is the transformation from a simple textual prompt to a graphical representation considered transformative under Campbell and 17 U.S.C. § 107, such that the AI is the creator of the secondary graphical work, to the extent that it is not a derivative work of the text prompt? Or would the prompt simply be considered an idea, which is not copyrightable under Baker v. Selden?
 		<a href="https://www.andrewyu.org/microblog/#37">&</a>