3 ms·

Good point. That fake commit addendum means that the entire commit contents would not be under copyright protection. AI generated code is not currently copyrigh

Good point. That fake commit addendum means that the entire commit contents would not be under copyright protection. AI generated code is not currently copyrightable.

bdangubic 6mo ago
Not that simple… this is great read: https://legallayer.substack.com/p/who-owns-the-claude-code-wrote https://legallayer.substack.com/p/who-owns-the-claude-code-w...
- bjt 6mo ago
  Still if you're the lawyer on the side of the lawsuit claiming that the code is copyrightable, you really don't want that copilot attribution in the commit message muddying the waters.
  - bdangubic 6mo ago
    you actually do, as counter-intuitive as that seems. co-authored implies (and gives you room to argue) that you were involved in the process. hiding the fact that you did if proven otherwise (not that hard to prove in many cases if it comes to that) won’t be looking good. at my work, we are mandated to include AI attribution and I would say every well-run company should have same mandate
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
whattheheckheck 6mo ago
Is thos actually decided yet? Closest thing was the image generation cases. What's your go to source for this?
jiveturkey 6mo ago
It doesn't mean that. A Co-Authored-By header isn't a legal signature or legal assertion of AI generated code.
- VanTheBrand 6mo ago
  It’s certainly an assertion.
hirvi74 6mo ago
Outside this instance, how can one prove code was AI generated beyond a reasonable doubt? Also, do you (or anyone else) know how much AI/copied-code has to be modified for it to be considered independent? If AI generates code, and one just renames some variables/method signatures, then what?
- tyre 6mo ago
  > how can one prove code was AI generated beyond a reasonable doubt? Subpoena the provider they use. Even if they don’t retain the full context, they have to save API calls for billing and analytics. If you’re clauding for the hour up to and after the commit, one can reasonably assume you built it with (if not exclusively by) AI.
  - skinfaxi 6mo ago
    > If you’re clauding for the hour up to and after the commit, one can reasonably assume you built it with (if not exclusively by) AI. That's not beyond a reasonable doubt.
- graemep 6mo ago
  Reasonable doubt is required in criminal cases,most disputes about whether AI or human wrote code will be civil cases.

Good point. That fake commit addendum means that the entire commit contents would not be under copyright protection. AI generated code is not currently copyrightable.

bdangubic 6mo ago

Not that simple… this is great read: https://legallayer.substack.com/p/who-owns-the-claude-code-wrote https://legallayer.substack.com/p/who-owns-the-claude-code-w...

bjt 6mo ago
Still if you're the lawyer on the side of the lawsuit claiming that the code is copyrightable, you really don't want that copilot attribution in the commit message muddying the waters.
- bdangubic 6mo ago
  you actually do, as counter-intuitive as that seems. co-authored implies (and gives you room to argue) that you were involved in the process. hiding the fact that you did if proven otherwise (not that hard to prove in many cases if it comes to that) won’t be looking good. at my work, we are mandated to include AI attribution and I would say every well-run company should have same mandate
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]

whattheheckheck 6mo ago

Is thos actually decided yet? Closest thing was the image generation cases. What's your go to source for this?

jiveturkey 6mo ago

It doesn't mean that. A Co-Authored-By header isn't a legal signature or legal assertion of AI generated code.

VanTheBrand 6mo ago
It’s certainly an assertion.

hirvi74 6mo ago

Outside this instance, how can one prove code was AI generated beyond a reasonable doubt? Also, do you (or anyone else) know how much AI/copied-code has to be modified for it to be considered independent? If AI generates code, and one just renames some variables/method signatures, then what?

tyre 6mo ago
> how can one prove code was AI generated beyond a reasonable doubt? Subpoena the provider they use. Even if they don’t retain the full context, they have to save API calls for billing and analytics. If you’re clauding for the hour up to and after the commit, one can reasonably assume you built it with (if not exclusively by) AI.
- skinfaxi 6mo ago
  > If you’re clauding for the hour up to and after the commit, one can reasonably assume you built it with (if not exclusively by) AI. That's not beyond a reasonable doubt.
graemep 6mo ago
Reasonable doubt is required in criminal cases,most disputes about whether AI or human wrote code will be civil cases.