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

561–570 of 570 posts

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#561

Post by KallDrexx »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #536
KallDrexx wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you write code by hand, you are the author. As part of your contract with your employer you grant copyright and authorship to your employer by default (as stated in the contract). The LLM is not employed by you or your employer, because you can't enter contracts with non human or non human organizations. When you license a non-LLM code generation service (like a page that creates a website for you), that company…

yeah this is what I understand - that it's the copyright ownership that is being transferred. But if there's no copyright to transfer, what does the company end up owning?

Afaict the company doesn't own any of what was written by an LLM. In theory that means all the companies are opening themselves up to code being reused by third party and a lack of legal protection.

In reality I fear it's going to cause less copyright protections even for small developers.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#562

Post by AuthAuth »

NewsaHackO wrote: post #300
nadermx wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how the copyright industry was able to spin copyright infringment into the pejorative "stealing". If you still have the item, what was stolen? Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985): The Supreme Court ruled that the unauthorized sale of phonorecords of copyrighted musical compositions does not constitute "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" goods under the National Stolen Property Act

Everybody has had a complete 180 in terms of copyright protections. Before, nobody cared about downloading music, movies, TV shows, or pirating games. Now, when the copyright law is affecting them, they are gungho about protecting these billion-dollar companies' copyrights.

Its not a 180. You can be against copyright but as long as copyright is still being enforced on you then you can think it should be enforced on AI companies.

I'd prefer no copyright but we live in a world where there is copyright so its unfair that only AI companies get to be immune.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#563

Post by daishi55 »

sarchertech wrote: post #235
user34283 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To evaluate the legal risks of using AI generated code, let’s consider how many lawsuits there have been over these concerns. Inadvertent copyleft license violations: probably 0 lawsuits Competitor copied your software, you could not defend your rights in court because it was made with AI: probably also 0 Users of agentic AI for software development: >10 million The thinking here seems pretty clear to me.

This is a terrible take. Complex litigation takes longer to play out than the time span that agents have existed.

It’s a great take that is based in reality, not speculation.

Is any such litigation in progress?

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#564

Post by daishi55 »

sarchertech wrote: post #311
daishi55 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would bet you any amount of money that metas ownership over CC-generated code is never challenged or threatened

Ok since you’re that confident—ten thousand to one odds. I’ll put up $100.

Done.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#565

Post by winstonwinston »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #545
winstonwinston wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's nothing anyone can do about it, but the suspicion is that the big companies have taken everyone's code on GitHub, without consent, and trained on it. I asked agent X what is the source of training data it generated code from, it couldn’t say. Then I asked why the code implementation is exactly the same as the output of agent Y. It said they were trained on the same ‘high-quality library’, and still couldn’t…

You asked a machine that makes things up when it doesn't know the answer a question that it has no way of knowing the answer to. I don't know why you bothered to relay its response.

It's a software, not a machine. The comment is relevant to the suspicion that THE software is using (distributing) some OSS code without attribution.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#566

Post by Dylan16807 »

winstonwinston wrote: post #565
Dylan16807 wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You asked a machine that makes things up when it doesn't know the answer a question that it has no way of knowing the answer to. I don't know why you bothered to relay its response.

It's a software, not a machine. The comment is relevant to the suspicion that THE software is using (distributing) some OSS code without attribution.

> It's a software, not a machine.

It's both and I don't see how that matters.

> The comment is relevant to the suspicion that THE software is using (distributing) some OSS code without attribution.

The accusations in the comment are relevant.

Framing it as a conversation with an LLM and showing its responses, when that LLM does not have access to the answer and is fully making up a response, is irrelevant and distracting.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#567

Post by winstonwinston »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #566
winstonwinston wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a software, not a machine. The comment is relevant to the suspicion that THE software is using (distributing) some OSS code without attribution.

> It's a software, not a machine. It's both and I don't see how that matters. > The comment is relevant to the suspicion that THE software is using (distributing) some OSS code without attribution. The accusations in the comment are relevant. Framing it as a conversation with an LLM and showing its responses, when that LLM does not have access to the answer and is fully making up a response, is irrelevant and distrac…

I see your point.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#568

Post by sylware »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #517
sylware wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how much of linux and *BSD is in the windows kernel.

judging from the attribution notices, windows contains a non trivial amount of BSD

That's why decades ago, devs did prefer GNU [L]GPL protected code, and why their was a "corporate" pressure for MIT and BSD license code.

Don't be a fool.

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#569

Post by sarahcollinscac »

all2 wrote: post #215
rspeele wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For another human being to look at my open source code, learn from it, get inspired by it, appreciate what I did, and let it influence their own creativity would bring me joy. That's why I open sourced it in the first place. Few people ever actually read open source code, but I'd like to think on the rare occasions they do, they share a connection with the author. I know when I read somebody else's code, for me to un…

We're moving into the 'industrial age of software'. You exact issue, of bespoke, well thought out and well-crafted code is one that craftsmen felt at the beginning of the industrial age. Now, parts are designed and churned out by machines that no one sees or cares about (generally speaking). This is where we are going with software, and production at a truly industrial scale has its place. And so does well-crafted be…

[flagged]

Re: Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?

#570

Post by Aerroon »

lelanthran wrote: post #550
inexcf wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't you agreeing with him? He pushed the boulder up the hill, thus he is responsible and liable for what happens. He is the author of the work of pushing the boulder up the hill. In your analogy: He was driving the car, he is liable for the death. He is the author of the work of driving the car. You are kinda unnecessarily introducing the creation of an object used for the work. Whoever did create the car/boulder…

> Aren't you agreeing with him? No. His claim is: >>>> If you're not the author then why would you have to be liable for it? And all his arguments after that are to support that claim. His claim is wrong. Ownership and liability are independent of each and all his supporting arguments are dismissing this fact. > Whoever did create the car/boulder is not liable for what happened. Incorrect; whoever owns the car/boulde…

Authorship and liability are related when the existence of the work itself is the violation.
Post reply on HN