3 ms·

Didn't a court in the US declare that AI generated content cannot be copyrighted? I think that could be a problem for AI generated code. Fine for projects with

by mcv 6mo ago

Didn't a court in the US declare that AI generated content cannot be copyrighted? I think that could be a problem for AI generated code. Fine for projects with an MIT/BSD license I suppose, but GPL relies on copyright. However, if the code has been slightly changed by a human, it can be copyrighted again. I think.

RussianCow 6mo ago
> Didn't a court in the US declare that AI generated content cannot be copyrighted? No, my understanding is that AI generated content can't be copyrighted by the AI. A human can still copyright it, however.
- Sharlin 6mo ago
  It's obvious that a computer program cannot have copyright because computer programs are not persons in any currently existing jurisdiction. Whether a person can claim copyright of the output of a computer program is generally understood as depending on whether there was sufficient creative effort from said person, and it doesn't really matter whether the program is Photoshop or ChatGPT.
  - paradoxyl 6mo ago
    Just thinking out loud... why can't an algorithm be an artificial person in the legal sense that a corporation is? Why not legally incorporate the AI as a corporation so it can operate in the real world: have accounts, create and hold copyrights...
    - SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
      Corporations are required to have human directors with full operational authority over the corporation's actions. This allows a court to summon them and compel them to do or not do things in the physical world. There's no reason a corporation can't choose to have an AI operate their accounts, but this won't affect the copyright status, and if the directors try to claim they can't override the AI's control of the accounts they'll find themselves in jail for contempt the first time the corporation faces a lawsuit.
    - direwolf20 6mo ago
      Because the law doesn't say it can. It's that simple.
  - galaxyLogic 6mo ago
    So if creative effort was put into writing the prompt, then whoever wrote the prompt should have the copyright to the output produced by ChatGPT?
    - LtWorf 6mo ago
      Sure, but the prompt wasn't the only input… there was considerable effort put into the training data as well :)
tadfisher 6mo ago
No, a court did not declare that. The case involved a person trying to register a work with only the AI system listed as author. The Supreme Court decided that you can't do that, you need to list a human being as author to register a work with the Copyright Office. This stems from existing precedent where someone tried to register a photograph with the monkey photographer listed as author. I don't believe the idea that humans can or can't claim copyright over AI-authored works has been tested. The Copyright Office says your prompt doesn't count and you need some human-authored element in the final work. We'll have to see.
- manwe150 6mo ago
  I’m curious to see if subscription vs free ends up mattering here. If it is a work for hire, generally it doesn’t matter how the work was produced, the end result is mine, because I contracted and instructed (prompted?) someone to do it for me. So will the copyright office decide it cares if I paid for the AI tool explicitly?
  - galaxyLogic 6mo ago
    That would depend on whether those who sold you the software-output, had copyright to it.
- papercrane 6mo ago
  It's almost a certainty that you can't copyright code that was generated entirely by an AI. Copyright requires some amount of human originality. You could copyright the prompt, and if you modify the generated code you can claim copyright on your modifications. The closest applicable case would be the monkey selfie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
  - abletonlive 6mo ago
    It's almost certain that you're wrong. It's like saying I can't copyright a song if my modular synthesizer generated it. Why would you think this?
simonw 6mo ago
Thaler v. Perlmutter said that an AI system cannot be listed as the sole author of a work - copyright requires a human author. US Copyright Office guidance in 2023 said work created with the help of AI can be registered as long as there is "sufficient human creative input". I don't believe that has ever been qualified with respect to code, but my instinct is that the way most people use coding agents (especially for something like kernel development) would qualify.
- davemp 6mo ago
  Interesting. That seems to suggest that one would need to retain the prompts in order to pursue copyright claims if a defendant can cast enough doubt on human authorship. Though I guess such a suit is unlikely if the defendant could just AI wash the work in the first place.
- mcv 6mo ago
  Sounds like using AI as a tool is fine, but those autonomous clawbots are not. All the more reason to reject their submissions, I guess.
singpolyma3 6mo ago
Public domain code is GPL compatible

by mcv 6mo ago

RussianCow 6mo ago

> Didn't a court in the US declare that AI generated content cannot be copyrighted? No, my understanding is that AI generated content can't be copyrighted by the AI. A human can still copyright it, however.

Sharlin 6mo ago
It's obvious that a computer program cannot have copyright because computer programs are not persons in any currently existing jurisdiction. Whether a person can claim copyright of the output of a computer program is generally understood as depending on whether there was sufficient creative effort from said person, and it doesn't really matter whether the program is Photoshop or ChatGPT.
- paradoxyl 6mo ago
  Just thinking out loud... why can't an algorithm be an artificial person in the legal sense that a corporation is? Why not legally incorporate the AI as a corporation so it can operate in the real world: have accounts, create and hold copyrights...
  - SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
    Corporations are required to have human directors with full operational authority over the corporation's actions. This allows a court to summon them and compel them to do or not do things in the physical world. There's no reason a corporation can't choose to have an AI operate their accounts, but this won't affect the copyright status, and if the directors try to claim they can't override the AI's control of the accounts they'll find themselves in jail for contempt the first time the corporation faces a lawsuit.
  - direwolf20 6mo ago
    Because the law doesn't say it can. It's that simple.
- galaxyLogic 6mo ago
  So if creative effort was put into writing the prompt, then whoever wrote the prompt should have the copyright to the output produced by ChatGPT?
  - LtWorf 6mo ago
    Sure, but the prompt wasn't the only input… there was considerable effort put into the training data as well :)

tadfisher 6mo ago

No, a court did not declare that. The case involved a person trying to register a work with only the AI system listed as author. The Supreme Court decided that you can't do that, you need to list a human being as author to register a work with the Copyright Office. This stems from existing precedent where someone tried to register a photograph with the monkey photographer listed as author. I don't believe the idea that humans can or can't claim copyright over AI-authored works has been tested. The Copyright Office says your prompt doesn't count and you need some human-authored element in the final work. We'll have to see.

manwe150 6mo ago
I’m curious to see if subscription vs free ends up mattering here. If it is a work for hire, generally it doesn’t matter how the work was produced, the end result is mine, because I contracted and instructed (prompted?) someone to do it for me. So will the copyright office decide it cares if I paid for the AI tool explicitly?
- galaxyLogic 6mo ago
  That would depend on whether those who sold you the software-output, had copyright to it.
papercrane 6mo ago
It's almost a certainty that you can't copyright code that was generated entirely by an AI. Copyright requires some amount of human originality. You could copyright the prompt, and if you modify the generated code you can claim copyright on your modifications. The closest applicable case would be the monkey selfie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
- abletonlive 6mo ago
  It's almost certain that you're wrong. It's like saying I can't copyright a song if my modular synthesizer generated it. Why would you think this?

simonw 6mo ago

Thaler v. Perlmutter said that an AI system cannot be listed as the sole author of a work - copyright requires a human author. US Copyright Office guidance in 2023 said work created with the help of AI can be registered as long as there is "sufficient human creative input". I don't believe that has ever been qualified with respect to code, but my instinct is that the way most people use coding agents (especially for something like kernel development) would qualify.

davemp 6mo ago
Interesting. That seems to suggest that one would need to retain the prompts in order to pursue copyright claims if a defendant can cast enough doubt on human authorship. Though I guess such a suit is unlikely if the defendant could just AI wash the work in the first place.
mcv 6mo ago
Sounds like using AI as a tool is fine, but those autonomous clawbots are not. All the more reason to reject their submissions, I guess.

singpolyma3 6mo ago

Public domain code is GPL compatible