4 ms·

Anthropic is right here. You need to clearly define what commits are AI authored or you are conspiring to commit copyfraud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyf

by panny 1mo ago

Anthropic is right here. You need to clearly define what commits are AI authored or you are conspiring to commit copyfraud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud AI does not enjoy copyright protection. Pretending you created something written by AI is copyfraud.

exe34 1mo ago
If anthropic believes in giving credit, why not give credit to all the content they stole?
- panny 1mo ago
  I don't disagree with you on this. However, it is clear to me that a lot of copyfraud is happening in this industry right now. Just look at all the github repos with a) a licnese.txt and b) a claude.md in the repo.
  - exe34 1mo ago
    Does Microsoft windows give credits to every developer who ever worked on it?
- gitaarik 1mo ago
  Isn't that implied when it says coauthored by Claude? Would be waste of chars to name everyone else
  - exe34 1mo ago
    Where can I see the list of everybody they stole IP from? Just saying "that guy stole it for me" isn't really giving credit to the real owners/creators.
    - gitaarik 1mo ago
      Ok, so what do you propose?
petcat 1mo ago
> AI does not enjoy copyright protection. Pretending you created something written by AI is copyfraud. Which court has made a ruling on this? The only decision I'm aware of was that some Gen-AI artwork couldn't be copyrightable if it was made without substantial input, direction, and scrutiny.
- panny 1mo ago
  Once again, I will point you to the law, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922 You did not write it, the AI did. Either the work cannot be copyright, or the AI owner (Anthropic) owns the code. Not you. In no case can you own code you didn't write. You guys keep arguing that it enjoys copyright protection without realizing this part. There is no "work-for-hire" default in the law for AI even if it did enjoy copyright. You don't own it. And I am pointing out neither should Anthropic.
  - wccrawford 1mo ago
    Yes, that's exactly what they were talking about. It says right in that page that sufficient changes can allow them to copyright the work, and it also says that their decision can be challenged.
    - panny 1mo ago
      And once again, you guys make this claim without reading the law. >several provisions of the Copyright Act imply that it uses the word "author" only to refer to human beings, including provisions (1) vesting copyright ownership "initially in the author"; (2) limiting copyright duration to 70 years after "the author's death"; (3) providing for inheritance of certain rights by the author's "widow or widower" or "surviving children or grandchildren"; (4) requiring a signature to transfer copyright ownership; (5) extending protection to unpublished works regardless of the author's "nationality or domicile"; and (6) defining a "joint work" based on the authors' "intention" to merge their contributions in a certain way. The law clearly, definitively, is talking about human authorship and nothing else. You are basing this concept that you can copyright AI written code on a law change that has not happened. It is very very unlikely that a law change can/will ever happen, because copyright law in particular is enshrined in international treaties like the 140 year old Berne Convention. This is a major reason why I was very much opposed to the TPP. Every new international copyright treaty is just more cement, making it completely unchangable. If you want to change this law, it will require cooperation from most of the countries in the world to do it.
dleeftink 1mo ago
There is of course, transformative use, and the slew of software packages we used to depend on without acknowledging the original maintainers on every commit.
cbm-vic-20 1mo ago
Interesting. According to the definition in that Wikipedia link, "copyfraud" is claiming copyright on public domain content. Does this mean a company can take code from an open source project that used AI, put it into their closed source code, potentially modify it, all without attribution?
- panny 1mo ago
  Yes, that's exactly what it means. AI works are public domain by default. Copyright law requires the work is created with human creativity. The essential piece is to clearly define what parts are AI generated vs human written. This is an obligation placed on you by the courts, and if you don't do it, it becomes very very hard to argue that you wrote that code.
micromacrofoot 1mo ago
Copyright shouldn't exist and AI (especially open weight models) is accelerationism to this point
forestry 1mo ago
That’s just your opinion on your own characterisation.
jamietanna 1mo ago
Very much agree, and per https://www.jvt.me/posts/2026/02/25/llm-attribute/ https://www.jvt.me/posts/2026/02/25/llm-attribute/ there are a number of other benefits to attributing correctly - you know what parts of the code may be "tainted" by AI-generated code, and allow yourself to clarify to the reader what parts are AI and what are not

by panny 1mo ago

exe34 1mo ago

If anthropic believes in giving credit, why not give credit to all the content they stole?

panny 1mo ago
I don't disagree with you on this. However, it is clear to me that a lot of copyfraud is happening in this industry right now. Just look at all the github repos with a) a licnese.txt and b) a claude.md in the repo.
- exe34 1mo ago
  Does Microsoft windows give credits to every developer who ever worked on it?
gitaarik 1mo ago
Isn't that implied when it says coauthored by Claude? Would be waste of chars to name everyone else
- exe34 1mo ago
  Where can I see the list of everybody they stole IP from? Just saying "that guy stole it for me" isn't really giving credit to the real owners/creators.
  - gitaarik 1mo ago
    Ok, so what do you propose?

petcat 1mo ago

> AI does not enjoy copyright protection. Pretending you created something written by AI is copyfraud. Which court has made a ruling on this? The only decision I'm aware of was that some Gen-AI artwork couldn't be copyrightable if it was made without substantial input, direction, and scrutiny.

panny 1mo ago
Once again, I will point you to the law, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922 You did not write it, the AI did. Either the work cannot be copyright, or the AI owner (Anthropic) owns the code. Not you. In no case can you own code you didn't write. You guys keep arguing that it enjoys copyright protection without realizing this part. There is no "work-for-hire" default in the law for AI even if it did enjoy copyright. You don't own it. And I am pointing out neither should Anthropic.
- wccrawford 1mo ago
  Yes, that's exactly what they were talking about. It says right in that page that sufficient changes can allow them to copyright the work, and it also says that their decision can be challenged.
  - panny 1mo ago
    And once again, you guys make this claim without reading the law. >several provisions of the Copyright Act imply that it uses the word "author" only to refer to human beings, including provisions (1) vesting copyright ownership "initially in the author"; (2) limiting copyright duration to 70 years after "the author's death"; (3) providing for inheritance of certain rights by the author's "widow or widower" or "surviving children or grandchildren"; (4) requiring a signature to transfer copyright ownership; (5) extending protection to unpublished works regardless of the author's "nationality or domicile"; and (6) defining a "joint work" based on the authors' "intention" to merge their contributions in a certain way. The law clearly, definitively, is talking about human authorship and nothing else. You are basing this concept that you can copyright AI written code on a law change that has not happened. It is very very unlikely that a law change can/will ever happen, because copyright law in particular is enshrined in international treaties like the 140 year old Berne Convention. This is a major reason why I was very much opposed to the TPP. Every new international copyright treaty is just more cement, making it completely unchangable. If you want to change this law, it will require cooperation from most of the countries in the world to do it.

dleeftink 1mo ago

There is of course, transformative use, and the slew of software packages we used to depend on without acknowledging the original maintainers on every commit.

cbm-vic-20 1mo ago

Interesting. According to the definition in that Wikipedia link, "copyfraud" is claiming copyright on public domain content. Does this mean a company can take code from an open source project that used AI, put it into their closed source code, potentially modify it, all without attribution?

panny 1mo ago
Yes, that's exactly what it means. AI works are public domain by default. Copyright law requires the work is created with human creativity. The essential piece is to clearly define what parts are AI generated vs human written. This is an obligation placed on you by the courts, and if you don't do it, it becomes very very hard to argue that you wrote that code.

micromacrofoot 1mo ago

forestry 1mo ago

That’s just your opinion on your own characterisation.

jamietanna 1mo ago

Very much agree, and per https://www.jvt.me/posts/2026/02/25/llm-attribute/ https://www.jvt.me/posts/2026/02/25/llm-attribute/ there are a number of other benefits to attributing correctly - you know what parts of the code may be "tainted" by AI-generated code, and allow yourself to clarify to the reader what parts are AI and what are not