5 ms·

if fable is writing it, courts my declare that its not even public domain? not a copywrightable work

by 8note 4mo ago

NewJazz 4mo ago
That'll translate across copyright jurisdictions.
lwyrup 4mo ago
I don’t know, if the design itself is copyrighted you could argue that the AI is just a bunch of hired workers that built it for extremely low wages. If I hired a bunch of people to build me a house, and I drafted the architectural plans with the help of a paid architect, neither the architect nor the builders have ownership over the home. So if a collection of people design something together maybe that has merit, they collectively paid for Anthropic to build it for them…
- jonhohle 4mo ago
  I’m pretty sure copyright office has settled that already. Inly human expression can be copyrighted: > As described above, in many circumstances these outputs will be copyrightable in whole or in part—where AI is used as a tool, and where a human has been able to determine the expressive elements they contain. Prompts alone, however, at this stage are unlikely to satisfy those requirements. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...
  - tgma 4mo ago
    The United States Copyright office. There's a whole world outside the US. And even then they can change their mind. Does not hurt to backstop with an explicit license.
  - rpdillon 4mo ago
    Using a harness to build something should clear that barrier, by the same logic that a photographer pointing on camera at something and pressing a button clears the barrier.
- unmole 4mo ago
  > you could argue that the AI is just a bunch of hired workers that built it for extremely low wages. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such an assertion. With apologies to Mr. Charles Babbage.
  - DonHopkins 4mo ago
    [dead]
  - lwyrup 4mo ago
    All computation abides by the same laws of getting sh*t done. Ask Mr. Amdahl. It starts with plebs (AI or otherwise) getting paid low wages.
Bombthecat 4mo ago
That's a problem more and more products in software will face. In a few years most saas will have 95 percent or even more AI coded code. Could I steal it and put it on git?
- masfuerte 4mo ago
  No, because it's a trade secret. But you might not be in breach of copyright.
plq 4mo ago
I don't get this. No I did not write that code but I paid money to eg. Anthropic to buy that code. To me it sounds like I own it just the same.
- 47282847 4mo ago
  Ownership is not the same as authorship. Copyright is about authors rights, not owners. If you buy a text of me, I cannot sign away my authorship, and there’s certain limitations on what you can do with my text regardless of contract.
  - Sharlin 4mo ago
    (This is correct in many jurisdictions but not in all; for example moral rights are not a thing everywhere.)
- 47282847 4mo ago
  Ownership is not the same as authorship. Copyright is about authors rights, not owners. If you buy a text of me, I cannot sign away my authorship, and there’s certain limitations on what you can do with my text regardless of contract. I can only sell you usage rights - which may or may not be exclusive. If the text I wrote is trivial, neither you nor me can limit when it is reproduced. The effort of collecting data is not sufficient, if the data itself is declared trivial. See rulings about phone books. When an AI provider produces data that is deemed not copyrightable, it cannot legally sell you exclusive usage rights. It can give it to you exclusively, but since you cannot yourself claim copyright, the moment you publish it it becomes available for others to use as well. One may argue that an LLM is similar to a phone book, with its entries being “trivial“ and its composition not artistic enough. At least that’s the line of argument.
- wongarsu 4mo ago
  "I paid money to someone to write that code" is exactly the line of argument that would lead to no copyright. There was the famous monkey selfie court case in 2015 that ruled that at least in the US, monkeys can't hold copyright. The same arguments would apply to AI. And since the AI can't create copyrighted works on its own, it can't assign copyright for works it created for hire either The other line of argument is the "Claude Code is to coding like a photo camera is to painting". The image is generated automatically, but the input in how you point the camera is enough to still make it a creative work protected by copyright. Under that interpretation, you are not hiring AI, you are using it like a tool The US Copyright Office holds the former opinion. I'm sure once this goes to court, lots of companies will vehemently argue the latter. I would not be surprised if we even end up changing the law over this

if fable is writing it, courts my declare that its not even public domain? not a copywrightable work

by 8note 4mo ago

if fable is writing it, courts my declare that its not even public domain? not a copywrightable work

NewJazz 4mo ago

That'll translate across copyright jurisdictions.

lwyrup 4mo ago

I don’t know, if the design itself is copyrighted you could argue that the AI is just a bunch of hired workers that built it for extremely low wages. If I hired a bunch of people to build me a house, and I drafted the architectural plans with the help of a paid architect, neither the architect nor the builders have ownership over the home. So if a collection of people design something together maybe that has merit, they collectively paid for Anthropic to build it for them…

jonhohle 4mo ago
I’m pretty sure copyright office has settled that already. Inly human expression can be copyrighted: > As described above, in many circumstances these outputs will be copyrightable in whole or in part—where AI is used as a tool, and where a human has been able to determine the expressive elements they contain. Prompts alone, however, at this stage are unlikely to satisfy those requirements. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...
- tgma 4mo ago
  The United States Copyright office. There's a whole world outside the US. And even then they can change their mind. Does not hurt to backstop with an explicit license.
- rpdillon 4mo ago
  Using a harness to build something should clear that barrier, by the same logic that a photographer pointing on camera at something and pressing a button clears the barrier.
unmole 4mo ago
> you could argue that the AI is just a bunch of hired workers that built it for extremely low wages. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such an assertion. With apologies to Mr. Charles Babbage.
- DonHopkins 4mo ago
  [dead]
- lwyrup 4mo ago
  All computation abides by the same laws of getting sh*t done. Ask Mr. Amdahl. It starts with plebs (AI or otherwise) getting paid low wages.

Bombthecat 4mo ago

That's a problem more and more products in software will face. In a few years most saas will have 95 percent or even more AI coded code. Could I steal it and put it on git?

masfuerte 4mo ago
No, because it's a trade secret. But you might not be in breach of copyright.

plq 4mo ago

I don't get this. No I did not write that code but I paid money to eg. Anthropic to buy that code. To me it sounds like I own it just the same.

47282847 4mo ago
Ownership is not the same as authorship. Copyright is about authors rights, not owners. If you buy a text of me, I cannot sign away my authorship, and there’s certain limitations on what you can do with my text regardless of contract.
- Sharlin 4mo ago
  (This is correct in many jurisdictions but not in all; for example moral rights are not a thing everywhere.)
47282847 4mo ago
Ownership is not the same as authorship. Copyright is about authors rights, not owners. If you buy a text of me, I cannot sign away my authorship, and there’s certain limitations on what you can do with my text regardless of contract. I can only sell you usage rights - which may or may not be exclusive. If the text I wrote is trivial, neither you nor me can limit when it is reproduced. The effort of collecting data is not sufficient, if the data itself is declared trivial. See rulings about phone books. When an AI provider produces data that is deemed not copyrightable, it cannot legally sell you exclusive usage rights. It can give it to you exclusively, but since you cannot yourself claim copyright, the moment you publish it it becomes available for others to use as well. One may argue that an LLM is similar to a phone book, with its entries being “trivial“ and its composition not artistic enough. At least that’s the line of argument.
wongarsu 4mo ago
"I paid money to someone to write that code" is exactly the line of argument that would lead to no copyright. There was the famous monkey selfie court case in 2015 that ruled that at least in the US, monkeys can't hold copyright. The same arguments would apply to AI. And since the AI can't create copyrighted works on its own, it can't assign copyright for works it created for hire either The other line of argument is the "Claude Code is to coding like a photo camera is to painting". The image is generated automatically, but the input in how you point the camera is enough to still make it a creative work protected by copyright. Under that interpretation, you are not hiring AI, you are using it like a tool The US Copyright Office holds the former opinion. I'm sure once this goes to court, lots of companies will vehemently argue the latter. I would not be surprised if we even end up changing the law over this