4 ms·

I think it should be pretty clear that if you provided the tool the specification for the code you want, you have already provided creative input. After all, i

by _flux 5mo ago

I think it should be pretty clear that if you provided the tool the specification for the code you want, you have already provided creative input. After all, is this not what happens with compilers as well? LLM agents are just quite advanced compilers that don't require the specification to be as detailed as with traditional compilers.

hypercube33 5mo ago
To me this is like asking who owns the binary files a compiler generates.
yodon 5mo ago
>it should be pretty clear that if you provided the tool the specification for the code you want, you have already provided creative input. If you provided a human contractor with the specifications for the code you want, the courts have repeatedly made clear you have not provided the creative input from a copyright perspective, and the contractor needs to explicitly assign those rights to you if want to own the copyright on the code.
- _flux 5mo ago
  Let's say we didn't have assemblers, but instead we would have three professions: - Specifiers, who make the specification for the system - Programmers, who write C code - Machine encoders, that take that C code and write machine code for a CPU Would it be that the copyright would then belong to programmers, if no other explicit assignments would be made? --- Thinking about it, probably yes: copyright of the spec belongs to specifies, copyright of the C belong to programmers, and copyright of machine code to machine encoders. Or would it depend on the amount of optimizations the machine encoders would do, i.e. is it creative or not? And then does this relate to the task and copyrightability of C compiler output, where optimizations can sometimes surprise the developer?
  - perlgeek 5mo ago
    In music, you can have copyright for a composition (like, lyrics and sheet music), and then for a master record. If you sell a copy of a song, you generally have pay royalties to both copyright holders. So, in your example, the specifiers would own the specification, the programmers the C code, and machine encoders own the machine code. But the ownership wouldn't be complete. If you sell the machine code, you'd have to pay royalties to all three. If you only sold the C code, only to the specifiers and the programmers.
- anikom15 5mo ago
  LLMs aren’t human.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
senaevren 5mo ago
The compiler analogy is the right one to reach for and the Copyright Office addressed it directly: the question is not whether you provided input, it is whether the creative expression in the output reflects human authorship. With a traditional compiler, the programmer authors every expression in the source. With an LLM, the programmer authors the intent and the model makes the expressive decisions about structure, naming, pattern, and implementation. Whether that distinction matters legally is what Allen v. Perlmutter is working through right now. The summary judgment briefing completed in early 2026 and it may be the next landmark ruling on exactly this question.
kk_mors 5mo ago
[dead]
everforward 5mo ago
Specifications are not necessarily creative input. Eg if I write a prompt that just says “write a rate limiter in Python”, there’s really no creative input. I didn’t decide on the API, or the algorithm to bucket requests, or where to store counters, or etc. I just gave it statements of fact, which are inherently not creative. Compilers are different in that the resulting binaries are not separately copyrighted. They are the same object to the Copyright Office because one produces the other, in the same way that converting an image to a PDF is still the same copyright. LLMs don’t do that. The stuff coming in may not be copyrighted, and may not be copyrightable. The stuff that comes out is not a rote series of transformations, there are decisions being made. In common use, running a prompt 10 times might yield 10 meaningfully different results. I’m dubious the outcome will be “any level of prompting is enough creativity”.
- pocksuppet 5mo ago
  Fine then that's not copyrightable at all. Just like hello world isn't copyrightable, whether in source form or compiled form.
- d0100 5mo ago
  The trick is to constrain the LLM to program in a very defined coding style If I make the LLM generate code that follows my own code architecture and style, that should be enough creative input
  - everforward 5mo ago
    Possibly; I'm not going to hazard a guess on what the Supreme Court will decide the exact bar is. I just don't think it will be either extreme. "Nothing is copyrighted" is too damaging to the economy, "everything is copyrighted" has weird impacts on non-LLM copyrights that conflict with precedent.
xmcp123 5mo ago
This is actually the opposite of what the copyright office has said. Directly addressing AI generated code/prompts, they compared it to someone who is commissioning art, describing to the artist what they want. The copyright falls to the artist, not the person commissioning it. Complicated in this case, because there is no artist.

by _flux 5mo ago

hypercube33 5mo ago

To me this is like asking who owns the binary files a compiler generates.

yodon 5mo ago

>it should be pretty clear that if you provided the tool the specification for the code you want, you have already provided creative input. If you provided a human contractor with the specifications for the code you want, the courts have repeatedly made clear you have not provided the creative input from a copyright perspective, and the contractor needs to explicitly assign those rights to you if want to own the copyright on the code.

_flux 5mo ago
Let's say we didn't have assemblers, but instead we would have three professions: - Specifiers, who make the specification for the system - Programmers, who write C code - Machine encoders, that take that C code and write machine code for a CPU Would it be that the copyright would then belong to programmers, if no other explicit assignments would be made? --- Thinking about it, probably yes: copyright of the spec belongs to specifies, copyright of the C belong to programmers, and copyright of machine code to machine encoders. Or would it depend on the amount of optimizations the machine encoders would do, i.e. is it creative or not? And then does this relate to the task and copyrightability of C compiler output, where optimizations can sometimes surprise the developer?
- perlgeek 5mo ago
  In music, you can have copyright for a composition (like, lyrics and sheet music), and then for a master record. If you sell a copy of a song, you generally have pay royalties to both copyright holders. So, in your example, the specifiers would own the specification, the programmers the C code, and machine encoders own the machine code. But the ownership wouldn't be complete. If you sell the machine code, you'd have to pay royalties to all three. If you only sold the C code, only to the specifiers and the programmers.
anikom15 5mo ago
LLMs aren’t human.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

senaevren 5mo ago

The compiler analogy is the right one to reach for and the Copyright Office addressed it directly: the question is not whether you provided input, it is whether the creative expression in the output reflects human authorship. With a traditional compiler, the programmer authors every expression in the source. With an LLM, the programmer authors the intent and the model makes the expressive decisions about structure, naming, pattern, and implementation. Whether that distinction matters legally is what Allen v. Perlmutter is working through right now. The summary judgment briefing completed in early 2026 and it may be the next landmark ruling on exactly this question.

kk_mors 5mo ago

[dead]

everforward 5mo ago

Specifications are not necessarily creative input. Eg if I write a prompt that just says “write a rate limiter in Python”, there’s really no creative input. I didn’t decide on the API, or the algorithm to bucket requests, or where to store counters, or etc. I just gave it statements of fact, which are inherently not creative. Compilers are different in that the resulting binaries are not separately copyrighted. They are the same object to the Copyright Office because one produces the other, in the same way that converting an image to a PDF is still the same copyright. LLMs don’t do that. The stuff coming in may not be copyrighted, and may not be copyrightable. The stuff that comes out is not a rote series of transformations, there are decisions being made. In common use, running a prompt 10 times might yield 10 meaningfully different results. I’m dubious the outcome will be “any level of prompting is enough creativity”.

pocksuppet 5mo ago
Fine then that's not copyrightable at all. Just like hello world isn't copyrightable, whether in source form or compiled form.
d0100 5mo ago
The trick is to constrain the LLM to program in a very defined coding style If I make the LLM generate code that follows my own code architecture and style, that should be enough creative input
- everforward 5mo ago
  Possibly; I'm not going to hazard a guess on what the Supreme Court will decide the exact bar is. I just don't think it will be either extreme. "Nothing is copyrighted" is too damaging to the economy, "everything is copyrighted" has weird impacts on non-LLM copyrights that conflict with precedent.

xmcp123 5mo ago

This is actually the opposite of what the copyright office has said. Directly addressing AI generated code/prompts, they compared it to someone who is commissioning art, describing to the artist what they want. The copyright falls to the artist, not the person commissioning it. Complicated in this case, because there is no artist.