5 ms·

I feel like the more important question here is whether AI-generated code can be copyrighted. Companies responsible for several billion dollars worth of softwa

by simonw 8mo ago

I feel like the more important question here is whether AI-generated code can be copyrighted. Companies responsible for several billion dollars worth of software written over the past ~36 months would really like to know the answer to that one.

yorwba 8mo ago
It doesn't really matter as long as you keep physical control of the code and don't let others copy it.
- beej71 8mo ago
  Nor does it matter if code has no value. I do think what happens in this case is SCOTUS will ultimately rule that AI-built code is copyrightable while art is not. I'm sure there's some rationale thick enough for them.
  - sowbug 8mo ago
    It's strange how hard it is to think of a situation that could lead to that case. Who would bother filing an infringement lawsuit for code whose very existence proves that it can be derived by anyone from LLM prompts? What would the damages even be? Interesting world we live in. Soon it'll be faster to one-shot the tiny slice of functionality I need from Adobe CS than to navigate their subscription cancellation obstacle course.
    - beej71 8mo ago
      > Soon it'll be faster to one-shot the tiny slice of functionality I need from Adobe CS than to navigate their subscription cancellation obstacle course. Pretty sure you're already in that world. ;)
    - joquarky 8mo ago
      This is precisely why copyright is practically obsolete. You can't legally forbid someone from paraphrasing, and now we can easily automate it to just within the threshold set by legal cases.
      - beej71 8mo ago
        I view this as a massive personal challenge. Can I write instructional materials that are better than an AI summary? I'm going to keep trying, even as books become obsolete.
- sowbug 8mo ago
  That would effectively rely on the doctrine of trade secret rather than copyright. A major difference is that accidental or malicious disclosure of a trade secret usually ends the trade secret status, forever. In an alternate universe where computer source code had never been copyrightable, famous leaks (Microsoft Windows, 2004; id Quake, 1997) would have effectively open-sourced those codebases, and other companies could have openly and legally used them. As source code becomes more of a generated artifact of software development the way object code is an artifact of compilation, we might be moving toward a world where secrecy, constant forward motion, and moats become even more of an asset (vs plain IP protection).
  - joquarky 8mo ago
    > would have effectively open-sourced those codebases, and other companies could have openly and legally used them. It's actually better if we keep re-creating the wheel. Keeps more people employed.
- asacrowflies 8mo ago
  So I can reverse engineer in peace without Nintendo ninjas lawyers coming after me?
  - joquarky 8mo ago
    You can always distribute a prompt instead of the product.
teeray 8mo ago
Can you imagine the chaos if suddenly all the slop code wasn’t owned by the company? Even though that result would be consistent with this ruling, it undermines the narrative the economy is now riding on, so there will likely be special exemption.
layer8 8mo ago
I would assume that the same “substantial human authorship” criterion applies. Copyright is about human creativity, it doesn’t otherwise matter if something is art, prose, typesetting, or code.
- uhfraid 8mo ago
  Yep. Not just copyright but patents as well > The Supreme Court previously rejected Thaler's request to hear his argument in a separate case involving prototypes for a beverage holder and a light beacon concerning whether AI-generated inventions should be eligible for U.S. patent protection. His patent applications were rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on similar grounds. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-declines-hear-dispute-over-copyrights-ai-generated-material-2026-03-02 https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-de...
ben_w 8mo ago
Perhaps. Even that may not be important if the METR progress line continues much longer, because then all those billion dollars "worth" of software written over the past 3-ish years get re-invented for cents on the dollar. Separately, I think code is more like an invention than a work of art, and should have been subject only to patent laws instead of (and not in addition to!) copyright laws. This doesn't really make much difference now, as AI doesn't (at least in the UK) have personhood for either copyright or patent law: https://www.briffa.com/blog/can-you-obtain-a-patent-for-inventions-made-by-ai/ https://www.briffa.com/blog/can-you-obtain-a-patent-for-inve...
keeda 8mo ago
For many, many reasons, I suspect patents will become much more important now. After all, it's the ideas that matter now. Which I maintain, has always been the case, because "execution" is nothing more than a series of smaller ideas, except those typically needed money. How convenient for those with capital! Patents have the drawback of being expensive and very slow to acquire, but having worked on a bunch, they are uniquely suited to be radically optimized by GenAI. Also patents are very flawed in practice, but the only real protection that is left. Copyright is meaningless when, as people have done, you can reproduce entire saas products by feeding AI screenshots. Intellectual Property as a whole has been in need for a revamp for a while now, but it's even more critical in the age of AI.
- _DeadFred_ 8mo ago
  Patents are what allowed the industrial revolution to happen. No one is bringing a cotton gin from idea to design to manufacturing to market if the second you release it every manufacturing company in the world can start making their won.
  - joquarky 8mo ago
    I wonder how things were invented before patents.
    - keeda 8mo ago
      This strawman pops up often. The purpose of IP is to "promote" progress. The word was carefully chosen. And luckily we have years of research, empirical and otherwise, showing the impact of IP on innovation and the arts. It's a very complex, multi-dimensional topic where outcomes vary depending on a combination of things like industry, subject matter, time frame, level of economic development of the country, strictness of enforcement, and more. However overall the impact of IP is much more positive than HN would think, largely because the material and discourse that has gotten airtime here is something that aligns more with the "information wants to be free" crowd.
    - freejazz 8mo ago

by simonw 8mo ago

yorwba 8mo ago

It doesn't really matter as long as you keep physical control of the code and don't let others copy it.

beej71 8mo ago
Nor does it matter if code has no value. I do think what happens in this case is SCOTUS will ultimately rule that AI-built code is copyrightable while art is not. I'm sure there's some rationale thick enough for them.
- sowbug 8mo ago
  It's strange how hard it is to think of a situation that could lead to that case. Who would bother filing an infringement lawsuit for code whose very existence proves that it can be derived by anyone from LLM prompts? What would the damages even be? Interesting world we live in. Soon it'll be faster to one-shot the tiny slice of functionality I need from Adobe CS than to navigate their subscription cancellation obstacle course.
  - beej71 8mo ago
    > Soon it'll be faster to one-shot the tiny slice of functionality I need from Adobe CS than to navigate their subscription cancellation obstacle course. Pretty sure you're already in that world. ;)
  - joquarky 8mo ago
    This is precisely why copyright is practically obsolete. You can't legally forbid someone from paraphrasing, and now we can easily automate it to just within the threshold set by legal cases.
    - beej71 8mo ago
      I view this as a massive personal challenge. Can I write instructional materials that are better than an AI summary? I'm going to keep trying, even as books become obsolete.
sowbug 8mo ago
That would effectively rely on the doctrine of trade secret rather than copyright. A major difference is that accidental or malicious disclosure of a trade secret usually ends the trade secret status, forever. In an alternate universe where computer source code had never been copyrightable, famous leaks (Microsoft Windows, 2004; id Quake, 1997) would have effectively open-sourced those codebases, and other companies could have openly and legally used them. As source code becomes more of a generated artifact of software development the way object code is an artifact of compilation, we might be moving toward a world where secrecy, constant forward motion, and moats become even more of an asset (vs plain IP protection).
- joquarky 8mo ago
  > would have effectively open-sourced those codebases, and other companies could have openly and legally used them. It's actually better if we keep re-creating the wheel. Keeps more people employed.
asacrowflies 8mo ago
So I can reverse engineer in peace without Nintendo ninjas lawyers coming after me?
- joquarky 8mo ago
  You can always distribute a prompt instead of the product.

teeray 8mo ago

Can you imagine the chaos if suddenly all the slop code wasn’t owned by the company? Even though that result would be consistent with this ruling, it undermines the narrative the economy is now riding on, so there will likely be special exemption.

layer8 8mo ago

I would assume that the same “substantial human authorship” criterion applies. Copyright is about human creativity, it doesn’t otherwise matter if something is art, prose, typesetting, or code.

uhfraid 8mo ago
Yep. Not just copyright but patents as well > The Supreme Court previously rejected Thaler's request to hear his argument in a separate case involving prototypes for a beverage holder and a light beacon concerning whether AI-generated inventions should be eligible for U.S. patent protection. His patent applications were rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on similar grounds. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-declines-hear-dispute-over-copyrights-ai-generated-material-2026-03-02 https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-de...

ben_w 8mo ago

Perhaps. Even that may not be important if the METR progress line continues much longer, because then all those billion dollars "worth" of software written over the past 3-ish years get re-invented for cents on the dollar. Separately, I think code is more like an invention than a work of art, and should have been subject only to patent laws instead of (and not in addition to!) copyright laws. This doesn't really make much difference now, as AI doesn't (at least in the UK) have personhood for either copyright or patent law: https://www.briffa.com/blog/can-you-obtain-a-patent-for-inventions-made-by-ai/ https://www.briffa.com/blog/can-you-obtain-a-patent-for-inve...

keeda 8mo ago

For many, many reasons, I suspect patents will become much more important now. After all, it's the ideas that matter now. Which I maintain, has always been the case, because "execution" is nothing more than a series of smaller ideas, except those typically needed money. How convenient for those with capital! Patents have the drawback of being expensive and very slow to acquire, but having worked on a bunch, they are uniquely suited to be radically optimized by GenAI. Also patents are very flawed in practice, but the only real protection that is left. Copyright is meaningless when, as people have done, you can reproduce entire saas products by feeding AI screenshots. Intellectual Property as a whole has been in need for a revamp for a while now, but it's even more critical in the age of AI.

_DeadFred_ 8mo ago
Patents are what allowed the industrial revolution to happen. No one is bringing a cotton gin from idea to design to manufacturing to market if the second you release it every manufacturing company in the world can start making their won.
- joquarky 8mo ago
  I wonder how things were invented before patents.
  - keeda 8mo ago
    This strawman pops up often. The purpose of IP is to "promote" progress. The word was carefully chosen. And luckily we have years of research, empirical and otherwise, showing the impact of IP on innovation and the arts. It's a very complex, multi-dimensional topic where outcomes vary depending on a combination of things like industry, subject matter, time frame, level of economic development of the country, strictness of enforcement, and more. However overall the impact of IP is much more positive than HN would think, largely because the material and discourse that has gotten airtime here is something that aligns more with the "information wants to be free" crowd.
  - freejazz 8mo ago