4 ms·

> do you have references for such code being legally considered public? There's a human authorship requirement for copyright protections. In context of AI, cf

by cygx 2mo ago

> do you have references for such code being legally considered public? There's a human authorship requirement for copyright protections. In context of AI, cf Stephen Thaler v. Perlmutter, eg. at [1]. [1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Thaler_v._Perlmutter,_Response_to_Motion_for_Summary_Judgment#V.B.1%2E https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Thaler_v._Perlmutter,_Respons...

dspillett 2mo ago
That specifically states “works created solely by machines” so probably doesn't cover AI-aided work? Though where you draw the line there is likely to be something that'll tax legal budgets for years to come…
- cygx 2mo ago
  From the 2025 Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence [1]: > The Office concludes that, given current generally available technology, prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output. Prompts essentially function as instructions that convey unprotectible ideas. While highly detailed prompts could contain the user’s desired expressive elements, at present they do not control how the AI system processes them in generating the output. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ https://www.copyright.gov/ai/
  - dspillett 2mo ago
    Again, that seems to be talking about fully AI generated work, like “works created solely by machines” from the previous document, not AI-aided work. It is only stating that the prompt is not considered sufficient human work because it comes before the generation process, but it says nothing of subsequent editing of combining with other stuff.
    - cygx 2mo ago
      In the absence of more specific legislation or court decisions, the same rules that cover usage of any other public domain code would apply.
- matheusmoreira 2mo ago
  The really annoying part is how the copyright lawyers have zero respect for the work of human review and refinement. Reviewing, editing and refining AI code isn't authorship, it's "adoption", they say. Repeated iteration is just rerolling the dice, they say. Not enough to make it copyrightable, they say. Meanwhile all the actual programmers demand that you spend effort constantly reviewing and iterating on the AI's work so the project doesn't turn into slop. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Maybe the best course of action is to opt out. Copyright is irrelevant if the software isn't published. So much for our precious commons.
  - rswail 2mo ago
    The first paragraph talking about reviewing, editing, and refining, is literally the job of a Literary Editor when working with an author on their literature. Editors do not have any IPRs over the resulting literary work. Following that simile, the AI is the "author" and the developer is the "editor". Given that an AI cannot be an "author" under copyright law, there is no copyright in the final product.

by cygx 2mo ago

dspillett 2mo ago

That specifically states “works created solely by machines” so probably doesn't cover AI-aided work? Though where you draw the line there is likely to be something that'll tax legal budgets for years to come…

cygx 2mo ago
From the 2025 Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence [1]: > The Office concludes that, given current generally available technology, prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output. Prompts essentially function as instructions that convey unprotectible ideas. While highly detailed prompts could contain the user’s desired expressive elements, at present they do not control how the AI system processes them in generating the output. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ https://www.copyright.gov/ai/
- dspillett 2mo ago
  Again, that seems to be talking about fully AI generated work, like “works created solely by machines” from the previous document, not AI-aided work. It is only stating that the prompt is not considered sufficient human work because it comes before the generation process, but it says nothing of subsequent editing of combining with other stuff.
  - cygx 2mo ago
    In the absence of more specific legislation or court decisions, the same rules that cover usage of any other public domain code would apply.
matheusmoreira 2mo ago
The really annoying part is how the copyright lawyers have zero respect for the work of human review and refinement. Reviewing, editing and refining AI code isn't authorship, it's "adoption", they say. Repeated iteration is just rerolling the dice, they say. Not enough to make it copyrightable, they say. Meanwhile all the actual programmers demand that you spend effort constantly reviewing and iterating on the AI's work so the project doesn't turn into slop. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Maybe the best course of action is to opt out. Copyright is irrelevant if the software isn't published. So much for our precious commons.
- rswail 2mo ago
  The first paragraph talking about reviewing, editing, and refining, is literally the job of a Literary Editor when working with an author on their literature. Editors do not have any IPRs over the resulting literary work. Following that simile, the AI is the "author" and the developer is the "editor". Given that an AI cannot be an "author" under copyright law, there is no copyright in the final product.