Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

legallayer.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 570 posts

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#71

Post by senaevren »

daishi55 wrote: post #36

I’m no lawyer but I feel that meta, my employer, wouldn’t be letting us go hog-wild with Claude code if they weren’t completely confident that they fully owned the outputs, whether we change it or not.

Meta's confidence almost certainly rests on the employment contracts and IP assignment clauses, not on a legal theory that AI output is inherently copyrightable. The enterprise agreement with Anthropic assigns outputs to the licensee. The employment contract assigns work product to Meta. Those two documents together give Meta a defensible ownership position regardless of the authorship question. The interesting gap is for developers using personal accounts or consumer plans on side projects, where neither of those documents exists.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#72

Post by senaevren »

tommy29tmar wrote: post #54

Maybe the useful test is not “who wrote this line?” but “can you show how it went from requirement/prompt/context to diff to human review/tests?” If you can’t, ownership is only one issue. You also can’t tell what was accepted as engineering work versus just copied output.

This is actually closer to how the Copyright Office thinks about it than the article makes clear. The registration guidance that emerged from the Thaler proceedings specifically asks applicants to describe the human creative contributions and how the AI was used. A documented workflow showing requirement, architectural decision, rejection of AI output, human restructuring, and review creates a paper trail that maps directly onto what the Office looks for. The can you show how it got here test you are describing is the practical version of the legal standard.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#73

Post by hackingonempty »

freedomben wrote: post #20
bko wrote: post #8

This is all well and good as an intellectual exercise, but in real life none of this matters. Almost no one thinks their code is copyrightable or seriously thinks their code is a moat. I've written the same chunks of code for a number of employers as has every engineer. We've all taken chunks from stack overflow and other places without carefully considering attribution. This comes up in a few places as a kind of vin…

> Almost no one thinks their code is copyrightable or seriously thinks their code is a moat. You'd be surprised! Among non-software management types, they often think of the code as extremely valuable IP and a trade secret. I'm a CTO and I've made comments before to non/less technical peers about how the code (generally speaking) isn't that big of a secret, and I routinely get shocked expressions. In one case the com…

Maybe LLM coding agents change the equation by making it much easier to adapt and use foreign and probably incomplete code. Getting you closer to competing with the original authors in a shorter amount of time than generating new code from scratch.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#74

Post by senaevren »

TheFirstNubian wrote: post #69

The elephant in the room, of course, is what constitutes “meaningful human authorship.” However, I cannot shake off the feeling that all user interactions with these AI models are being logged. Perhaps this may turn out to be the bigger concern in a potential legal battle than code authorship.

The meaningful human authorship question is the elephant, agreed, and the regulators have deliberately refused to quantify it for exactly the reason you describe any bright line number becomes a target to game rather than a standard to meet.

The logging point is sharper than it might appear. In a copyright dispute over AI-assisted code, interaction logs could cut both ways. A plaintiff trying to establish human authorship would want the logs to show substantial architectural redirection, multiple rejections of Claude output, and documented reasoning for structural decisions. A defendant challenging that authorship claim would subpoena the same logs to show verbatim acceptance of output without modification.

The practical implication i guess here,that the developers who want to preserve a copyright claim over AI-assisted code should treat their prompt history as a legal document from the start. It seems all over the world the logs are the evidence. Whether they help or hurt depends entirely on what they show.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#75

Post by 6stringmerc »

jhbadger wrote: post #3

This is of course assuming you take AI-generated code unchanged. But you don't, in my experience. And that generates a new work fully copyrightable even if the original wasn't. Just like how the fad a decade or so ago of taking Tolstoy and Jane Austen works and adding new elements -- "Android Karenina" and "Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters" are copyrighted works even if the majority of the text in them was from…

Wrong. This territory was heavily covered in music before this code concept - it has to be “transformative” in the eyes of the law. Even going in and cleaning up code or adding 10-25% new code won’t pass this threshold. Don't bother arguing with me on this, just accept reality and deal with it.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#76

Post by senaevren »

hackingonempty wrote: post #65

Nobody disputes that I own the copyright in a sound recording I made just by pushing the red button on my recorder. So it is a mystery to me that copyright to any sort of human conditioned machine generation is in dispute.

The sound recording analogy breaks down at the point where the recorder makes no creative decisions. Pressing record captures what is already there. Prompting Claude generates something that did not exist, through decisions the model makes about structure, naming, pattern, and implementation. The closer analogy is hiring a session musician and telling them the key and tempo. You own the recording under work-for-hire if they signed the right contract, but the creative expression in the performance is theirs unless explicitly assigned. The button you push to start the model is not the same button as the one on the recorder.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#77

Post by senaevren »

padmabushan wrote: post #16

First answer who owns the model built with public data

The model ownership question and the output ownership question run on separate legal tracks and the piece focuses on the second deliberately. On the first: the model weights are owned by Anthropic under work-for-hire from their engineers regardless of what the training data contained. Training data copyright infringement is a separate tort claim against Anthropic, not a basis for anyone else to claim ownership of the model. The Bartz settlement resolved the pirated books claim without disturbing Anthropic's ownership of the weights. Owning the training data does not give you ownership of the model trained on it, any more than owning the paint gives you ownership of the painting.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#78

Post by sarchertech »

ModernMech wrote: post #51
Luker88 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No such assumption is made in the article. Nor does it give a single answer. Mere prompting is still not enough for copyright, and the problem is unsolved on how much contribution a human needs to make to the generated code. In the case for generated images copyright has been assigned only to the human-modified parts. Even worse, it will be slightly different in other nations. The only one that accepts copyright for…

Here's a question I have: if the AI generated image is of a character of which you own the IP, don't you have protections based on the character regardless of who gets copyright protections from authorship of the image?

Yeah if you have a copyright on the character, the AI generated image doesn’t change that. It doesn’t give you more of less protection than you already had.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#79

Post by stvltvs »

ninkendo wrote: post #49
gchamonlive wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is of course assuming you take AI-generated code unchanged. How much code do you need to change in order for it to be original? One line? 10%? More than 50%? That's arbitrary and quite unproductive convo to be honest.

> That's arbitrary and quite unproductive convo to be honest. Yeah but that’s what the legal system ostensibly does . Splitting fine hairs over whether a derived work is “transformative” is something lawyers and judges have been arguing and deciding for centuries. Just because it’s hard to define a bright red line, doesn’t mean the decision is arbitrary. Courts will mull over whether a dotted quarter note on the four…

Because at the end of the day, someone has to own the code, so some lines have to be drawn no matter how arbitrary they seem.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#80

Post by sarchertech »

daishi55 wrote: post #36

I’m no lawyer but I feel that meta, my employer, wouldn’t be letting us go hog-wild with Claude code if they weren’t completely confident that they fully owned the outputs, whether we change it or not.

There’s so much FOMO right now around AI that no one is thinking clearly. I wouldn’t be so confident in your company.
Post reply on HN