# Research and credits — Credit Where

Site: https://creditwhere.sahiltayal.com/
Sources checked: 24 October 2026. Legal status can change after this date.

## How this site was made (provenance)

- **Subject, editorial position, palette, required exhibits:** Sahil Tayal (written brief).
- **Drafting of text, design and code:** Claude (an AI model by Anthropic), working from that brief, in one build session.
- **Visuals:** Original inline SVG and CSS drawn for this site (hero threads, stamps, credit-map diagram, favicon, OG image). No third-party images, fonts or icon sets.
- **Scenarios:** The cook “Meera,” the bakery, the perfume prototype, the research essay, the cricketer’s memoir and the AI-assisted poster are **fiction**. They describe no real people, clients or events.
- **Sahil’s biography:** The site makes no claims about Sahil’s clients, income, outcomes or validated research. The family-shop passage in Essay 03 is labelled as a hypothetical illustration.
- **Before publishing:** Sahil should read every claim, edit the “How this page was made” panel in `index.html` if his own role changes (for example, if he rewrites sections), and re-check the legal sources if months have passed.

## Sources used (each opened and checked during the build)

| # | Source | What it supports on the site | What it does **not** establish |
|---|--------|------------------------------|-------------------------------|
| 1 | US Copyright Office, *Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability* (Jan 2025). https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf | With current technology, prompts alone generally do not give authorship of AI output. Human expressive inputs and creative selection, arrangement or modification can be protected, case by case. | Law outside the US; outcomes of future cases. |
| 2 | US Copyright Office, Copyright and AI landing page. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ | Report series exists; Part 3 (generative AI training) released as a pre-publication version in May 2025. | Any conclusion on training fairness. The site cites it only to show the question is unsettled. |
| 3 | *Thaler v. Perlmutter*, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir., 18 Mar 2025). https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2025/03/23-5233.pdf | The US Copyright Act requires human authorship in the first instance; an AI listed as sole author cannot be registered. | How much human involvement suffices when people use AI; the court left this open. |
| 3a | SCOTUSblog case page, *Thaler v. Perlmutter*, No. 25-449. https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/thaler-v-perlmutter | Certiorari denied 2 March 2026. | A merits ruling by the Supreme Court; a denial is not one. |
| 4 | UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.9(3). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/9 | The UK has a specific computer-generated works provision (author = person who made the arrangements necessary for creation). | How it applies to modern generative AI. The site says this is debated. |
| 5 | NISO, CRediT Contributor Role Taxonomy, ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022. https://credit.niso.org/ | 14 named contributor roles used in research publishing. | Who should be an author. |
| 6 | ICMJE, *Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors*. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html | Four authorship criteria including final approval and accountability; non-authors acknowledged; AI tools cannot be authors and their use must be disclosed. | Norms outside medical publishing. |
| 7 | Leonard E. Read, *I, Pencil* (FEE, 1958), Library of Economics and Liberty edition. https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl.html | A classic illustration of dispersed contribution to a simple object. | Its market-policy conclusions; the site neither adopts nor rejects them. |
| 8 | C2PA. https://c2pa.org/ | An open standard (Content Credentials) for recording origin and edit history of digital media. | That credentialed content is accurate. |
| 9 | Creative Commons, *Best practices for attribution*. https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Best_practices_for_attribution | The TASL attribution pattern (Title, Author, Source, Licence). | Requirements for non-CC licences. |

## Sibling Sahilverse sites (visited 24 Oct 2026)

These are cited only for what they say about themselves, never as independent evidence.

- https://mixtape.sahiltayal.com/ — states its remix examples are handcrafted, not AI-generated, and that the studio runs locally without data collection.
- https://services.sahiltayal.com/ — states AI-assisted tools may help with exploring, prototyping and coding but final work must be reviewed and working; labels project imagery as conceptual artwork.
- https://dignity.sahiltayal.com/ — argues courtesy cannot substitute for fair conditions.
- https://sahiltayal.com/ and https://sahiltayal.medium.com/ — supplied in the brief as the return link and writing archive. See README for link-check status.

## Deliberately not cited

- Ronald Coase, “The Nature of the Firm” (1937) is relevant to Essay 03 but its DOI could not be loaded during the build, so it is not cited.
- Indian copyright law has its own provision on computer-generated works, but a primary text was not verified in this session, so the site does not describe it.

## Claim labels used on the page

Evidence · Established framework · Interpretation · Hypothesis · Illustration · Fiction. Each claim-bearing paragraph that needs one carries a visible label. The credit map’s “clearly / partly / depends / rarely / no” readings are **editorial illustrations**. They are not legal analysis, and they are not shares.