111–119 of 119 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least for art there is already precedent in US courts with someone trying to copyright an image generated by midjourney and it getting revoked in 22, because ai generated art cannot be copyrighted. for code it hasn't been challenged yet, but I find it doubtful they'd decide differently there
Assuming you're referring to Thaler v. Perlmutter, Thaler claimed to the copyright office that the image at issue was "autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine". So the question of "if you claim the LLM did it itself" is settled (shocker, cf. Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418), but that definitely did not settle "_I_ used the LLM to do it".
This article reads like an ad for the author’s product.
The one thing we dont see news stories of is how open source has finally crushed that big evil corp because ai-multiplier times many open source contributors is Unlimited Power (tm)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can only talk about the law in England & Wales, but: For code generated by an LLM the human user would likely be considered the author if you provided sufficient creative input, direction, or modification. The level of human involvement matters, simply prompting "write me a function" might not be enough, but providing detailed specifications, reviewing, and modifying the output would strengthen the claim. the Copyr…
At least for art there is already precedent in US courts with someone trying to copyright an image generated by midjourney and it getting revoked in 22, because ai generated art cannot be copyrighted. for code it hasn't been challenged yet, but I find it doubtful they'd decide differently there
So far, the judge believe that training models on open source code is not a license violation as the code is public for anyone to read, but by "distribution or redistribution" (I assume, of the model's outputs?) it is still up for the court's decision whether that violate the terms of the license, among other laws.
The case is currently moved to Ninth Circuit without a decision in the district court, as there are other similar cases (such as Authors Guild's) and they wanted that the courts would offer a consistent rules. I believe one of the big delay in the case is in damages, which I think the plaintiff tried to ask for details of Microsoft's valuation of GitHub when it was acquired, as GitHub's biggest asset is the Git repositories and may provide a monetary value of how much each project is worth. Microsoft is trying to stall and not reveal this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL but the AI is a tool and presumably the code should be treated as any other auto-generated. Its the product of the tool user. Unless the product includes code licensed by others, then - like any other repo - I don't see any license issue here. If you mean there is no insight as to whether licensed code is included, that's one of the constraints of vibe-coding (which people often confuse with AI-assisted coding)…
No, there is no copyright. If you tried to sue someone for copyright infringement based on code that an LLM generated for you, you'd be laughed out of court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what would be the status of this code? Nobody holds the copyright for it, so anyone can use it in any way and nobody can sue for anything. It's not GPL, but it sounds pretty open source to me.
Yes, my understanding is that non-humans in the USA, cannot be granted copyright. This puts the work in the public domain, which means it can't be relicensed. There was a much appealed case of a monkey taking a photo, where it was decided the photo was in the public domain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput... It boiled down to the creator not being a "legal person" and so could not hold co…
Claim partial copyright without specifying clearly what exactly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, my understanding is that non-humans in the USA, cannot be granted copyright. This puts the work in the public domain, which means it can't be relicensed. There was a much appealed case of a monkey taking a photo, where it was decided the photo was in the public domain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput... It boiled down to the creator not being a "legal person" and so could not hold co…
Can you buy Jules Verns book, add comments and claim copyright on the whole book? Claim partial copyright without specifying clearly what exactly?
People sell annotated Bibles, or Shakespeare etc. You can transform it in to something that can acquire copyright, but it must have an artistic step.
This is a big thing in the fine art world as well, you can take inspiration, you can in some circumstances outright copy, but then you need to transform it sufficiently that it becomes your own art. People argue in front of judges about this stuff, of course.
Verne is a good example too, because if you print an English version, the translator acquires copyright in the translated version.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there is barely any code in those repos that you wrote, how can you license them under the GPL? You don't hold the copyright for it. This genuinely isn't an attack, I just don't think you can? The AI isn't granted copyright over what it produces.
I can only talk about the law in England & Wales, but: For code generated by an LLM the human user would likely be considered the author if you provided sufficient creative input, direction, or modification. The level of human involvement matters, simply prompting "write me a function" might not be enough, but providing detailed specifications, reviewing, and modifying the output would strengthen the claim. the Copyr…