"Can you give an example of where the bunch of numbers is copyrightable when it's not just a numeric encoding of something that was already copyrightable?"
Sure, there are "poems" that consist of just a groups of numbers that are copyrighted. They are not encodings, it's just a string of numbers. It's indistinguishable from a bunch of numbers. This is just one example, there are lots.
They are enforceable to the degree it's creative, and to the degree the infringing use is also creative.
So you would not be able to sue me for using those numbers in a math equation. You would be able to sue me for reproducing your poem in a book of poems :)
As feist says, the creativity required for copyright is quite minimal.
But it's still only as protectable as it is creative.
Look - AI is not the first thing to have this "issue". The answer remains the same as it always was - it's mostly about the process not the output.
The output mostly matters is if the output is not intended to be creative (or it's de minimis or ...).
Copyright as it currently exists is weird.
Like if you go to the copyright office and try to register your ssh public key and say "this was generated by ssh-keygen i had nothing to do with it" you may get a different result than if you said "this is my new visually stunning masterpiece, my ssh public key, which was generated with computer help but I used 37 precisely timed keyboard smashes to do it. Prints are available from my gallery for $500"
I fully agree with what you say, with one bit of nuance to point out:
> Like if you go to the copyright office and try to register your ssh public key and say "this was generated by ssh-keygen i had nothing to do with it" you may get a different result than if you said "this is my new visually stunning masterpiece, my ssh public key, which was generated with computer help but I used 37 precisely timed keyboard smashes to do it. Prints are available from my gallery for $500"
The important thing, of course, isn't whether the copyright office denies to register your copyright, but instead what courts will ultimately do when you attempt to enforce your copyright.
We know the current administrative algorithms used by the copyright offices. We have less clarity on what courts will ultimately do.
Sure, there are "poems" that consist of just a groups of numbers that are copyrighted. They are not encodings, it's just a string of numbers. It's indistinguishable from a bunch of numbers. This is just one example, there are lots.
They are enforceable to the degree it's creative, and to the degree the infringing use is also creative.
So you would not be able to sue me for using those numbers in a math equation. You would be able to sue me for reproducing your poem in a book of poems :)
As feist says, the creativity required for copyright is quite minimal. But it's still only as protectable as it is creative.
Look - AI is not the first thing to have this "issue". The answer remains the same as it always was - it's mostly about the process not the output.
The output mostly matters is if the output is not intended to be creative (or it's de minimis or ...).
Copyright as it currently exists is weird.
Like if you go to the copyright office and try to register your ssh public key and say "this was generated by ssh-keygen i had nothing to do with it" you may get a different result than if you said "this is my new visually stunning masterpiece, my ssh public key, which was generated with computer help but I used 37 precisely timed keyboard smashes to do it. Prints are available from my gallery for $500"