Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Darkly)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo
  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. If you use AI-generated code, you currently cannot claim copyright on it in the US.

If you use AI-generated code, you currently cannot claim copyright on it in the US.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
178 Posts 93 Posters 5 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • tuban_muzuruT tuban_muzuru

    @jamie

    Stop whining. You and about seventy zillion terrified sheep running around here bleating about the Terrible AI monster under the bed.

    Jamie GaskinsJ This user is from outside of this forum
    Jamie GaskinsJ This user is from outside of this forum
    Jamie Gaskins
    wrote last edited by
    #27

    @tuban_muzuru Buddy, you're the only one that's been whining this whole time. Whining about what I said, whining about "get a Claude subscription".

    I was literally talking about "I'm gonna have popcorn ready". I don't know how you read fear from that.

    It seems more like you feel attacked because someone criticized AI. You've been the only one alarmed in this whole thread.

    Jared White (ResistanceNet ✊)J 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • Jamie GaskinsJ Jamie Gaskins

      FWIW I'm not a lawyer and I'm not recommending that you do this. πŸ˜„ Even if companies have no legal standing on copyright, their legal team will try it. It *will* cost you money.

      But man, oh man, I'm gonna have popcorn ready for when someone inevitably pulls this move.

      Emma needs β˜•οΈ and paying workE This user is from outside of this forum
      Emma needs β˜•οΈ and paying workE This user is from outside of this forum
      Emma needs β˜•οΈ and paying work
      wrote last edited by
      #28

      @jamie the corporations own the Supreme Court of the US who will cheerfully make up new law out of whatever Clarence Thomas shat that morning.

      Jamie GaskinsJ 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • Jamie GaskinsJ Jamie Gaskins

        If you use AI-generated code, you currently cannot claim copyright on it in the US. If you fail to disclose/disclaim exactly which parts were not written by a human, you forfeit your copyright claim on *the entire codebase*.

        This means copyright notices and even licenses folks are putting on their vibe-coded GitHub repos are unenforceable. The AI-generated code, and possibly the whole project, becomes public domain.

        Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB10922/LSB10922.8.pdf

        David W. JonesD This user is from outside of this forum
        David W. JonesD This user is from outside of this forum
        David W. Jones
        wrote last edited by
        #29

        @jamie And Microsoft executives keep bragging about how much Windows code is being written by AIs?

        Count me as one person NOT AT ALL interested in Windows, regardless of any copyright status.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • Jamie GaskinsJ Jamie Gaskins

          If you use AI-generated code, you currently cannot claim copyright on it in the US. If you fail to disclose/disclaim exactly which parts were not written by a human, you forfeit your copyright claim on *the entire codebase*.

          This means copyright notices and even licenses folks are putting on their vibe-coded GitHub repos are unenforceable. The AI-generated code, and possibly the whole project, becomes public domain.

          Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB10922/LSB10922.8.pdf

          LeelooL This user is from outside of this forum
          LeelooL This user is from outside of this forum
          Leeloo
          wrote last edited by
          #30

          @jamie
          That doesn't sound quite right. The code "AI" generates are stolen from other people, presumably they still have their copyright.

          Also, even if we pretend that it is actually generated by a machine, so is the output of a compiler. Is Microsoft Office in the public domain, because the executable was generated by a compiler?

          Jamie GaskinsJ 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • Jamie GaskinsJ Jamie Gaskins

            If you use AI-generated code, you currently cannot claim copyright on it in the US. If you fail to disclose/disclaim exactly which parts were not written by a human, you forfeit your copyright claim on *the entire codebase*.

            This means copyright notices and even licenses folks are putting on their vibe-coded GitHub repos are unenforceable. The AI-generated code, and possibly the whole project, becomes public domain.

            Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB10922/LSB10922.8.pdf

            Farhan AhmedM This user is from outside of this forum
            Farhan AhmedM This user is from outside of this forum
            Farhan Ahmed
            wrote last edited by
            #31

            @jamie πŸ€” Microslop, allegedly, vibe coded up to 30% of the Windows 11 codebase using genAI. Theoretically anyone working for Microslop with access to the codebase can upload the whole codebase without recourse?

            Jamie GaskinsJ 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • Emma needs β˜•οΈ and paying workE Emma needs β˜•οΈ and paying work

              @jamie the corporations own the Supreme Court of the US who will cheerfully make up new law out of whatever Clarence Thomas shat that morning.

              Jamie GaskinsJ This user is from outside of this forum
              Jamie GaskinsJ This user is from outside of this forum
              Jamie Gaskins
              wrote last edited by
              #32

              @emma Oh yeah, shit's gonna get weird for a while and I think a lot of legislation going in during this administration as well as recent SCOTUS cases will need to be revisited. Ideally after also instituting laws around conflicts of interest with government officials that don't carve out exceptions for, oh I dunno, members of Congress, for example.

              Basically, I want the different branches of the government to fight each other again rather than the different parties.

              Emma needs β˜•οΈ and paying workE 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • LeelooL Leeloo

                @jamie
                That doesn't sound quite right. The code "AI" generates are stolen from other people, presumably they still have their copyright.

                Also, even if we pretend that it is actually generated by a machine, so is the output of a compiler. Is Microsoft Office in the public domain, because the executable was generated by a compiler?

                Jamie GaskinsJ This user is from outside of this forum
                Jamie GaskinsJ This user is from outside of this forum
                Jamie Gaskins
                wrote last edited by
                #33

                @leeloo Last I heard, the holders of the copyrights on the material that the LLMs are trained on are being told to get fucked.

                The class action lawsuit that Anthropic lost was decided not because they trained their models on stolen copyrighted material, but because they stored copies of that material to keep training their models on. My understanding is that it was the storage specifically that violated copyright and that, if they'd deleted that data they'd have been legally clear.

                LeelooL 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • Farhan AhmedM Farhan Ahmed

                  @jamie πŸ€” Microslop, allegedly, vibe coded up to 30% of the Windows 11 codebase using genAI. Theoretically anyone working for Microslop with access to the codebase can upload the whole codebase without recourse?

                  Jamie GaskinsJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  Jamie GaskinsJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  Jamie Gaskins
                  wrote last edited by
                  #34

                  @macronaut Possibly. The next two posts in the thread have a little more detail on my understanding of the current state of affairs there.

                  https://zomglol.wtf/@jamie/116059593870764508

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • Jamie GaskinsJ Jamie Gaskins

                    If you use AI-generated code, you currently cannot claim copyright on it in the US. If you fail to disclose/disclaim exactly which parts were not written by a human, you forfeit your copyright claim on *the entire codebase*.

                    This means copyright notices and even licenses folks are putting on their vibe-coded GitHub repos are unenforceable. The AI-generated code, and possibly the whole project, becomes public domain.

                    Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB10922/LSB10922.8.pdf

                    SnoopJS This user is from outside of this forum
                    SnoopJS This user is from outside of this forum
                    SnoopJ
                    wrote last edited by
                    #35

                    @jamie @aeva I suspect that courts would not be favorable to this reading, and would buy the (bullshit, IMO) argument that sufficient human interaction with the code "heals" the copyrightability of the result, and more importantly that they would not press the applicant to show much work when it comes to "sufficient" (that is, I suspect many judges would accept "I edited the code at all" as meeting the sufficiency criterion)

                    but we're only going to find out if and when it's tested. The Copyright Office is doing the best they can do and making it clear that they won't let "AI" waste their time with copyright registrations (which are not required to legally protect a work, they're just paperwork really)

                    aevaA 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • Jamie GaskinsJ Jamie Gaskins

                      @leeloo Last I heard, the holders of the copyrights on the material that the LLMs are trained on are being told to get fucked.

                      The class action lawsuit that Anthropic lost was decided not because they trained their models on stolen copyrighted material, but because they stored copies of that material to keep training their models on. My understanding is that it was the storage specifically that violated copyright and that, if they'd deleted that data they'd have been legally clear.

                      LeelooL This user is from outside of this forum
                      LeelooL This user is from outside of this forum
                      Leeloo
                      wrote last edited by
                      #36

                      @jamie
                      Well, someone still needs to decide at some point whether to abolish copyright or start enforcing it again, and at that point it could become a huge problem for anyone who has incorporated stolen code into their code base.

                      Jamie GaskinsJ 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • SnoopJS SnoopJ

                        @jamie @aeva I suspect that courts would not be favorable to this reading, and would buy the (bullshit, IMO) argument that sufficient human interaction with the code "heals" the copyrightability of the result, and more importantly that they would not press the applicant to show much work when it comes to "sufficient" (that is, I suspect many judges would accept "I edited the code at all" as meeting the sufficiency criterion)

                        but we're only going to find out if and when it's tested. The Copyright Office is doing the best they can do and making it clear that they won't let "AI" waste their time with copyright registrations (which are not required to legally protect a work, they're just paperwork really)

                        aevaA This user is from outside of this forum
                        aevaA This user is from outside of this forum
                        aeva
                        wrote last edited by
                        #37

                        @SnoopJ @jamie i think the point is this is a possible that has precedence already

                        Cassandra is only carbon nowX 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • R ActivityRelay shared this topic
                        • aevaA aeva

                          @SnoopJ @jamie i think the point is this is a possible that has precedence already

                          Cassandra is only carbon nowX This user is from outside of this forum
                          Cassandra is only carbon nowX This user is from outside of this forum
                          Cassandra is only carbon now
                          wrote last edited by
                          #38

                          @SnoopJ @jamie @aeva That was my read as well. IANAL, but my lay understanding was that even if the courts eventually don't act favorably towards an argument, that it exists and has precedent is enough to create legal risk?

                          SnoopJS 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • Jamie GaskinsJ Jamie Gaskins

                            If you use AI-generated code, you currently cannot claim copyright on it in the US. If you fail to disclose/disclaim exactly which parts were not written by a human, you forfeit your copyright claim on *the entire codebase*.

                            This means copyright notices and even licenses folks are putting on their vibe-coded GitHub repos are unenforceable. The AI-generated code, and possibly the whole project, becomes public domain.

                            Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB10922/LSB10922.8.pdf

                            0xC0DEC0DE07EAC This user is from outside of this forum
                            0xC0DEC0DE07EAC This user is from outside of this forum
                            0xC0DEC0DE07EA
                            wrote last edited by
                            #39

                            @jamie I wonder if that’ll kill the use of β€œAI” at work

                            Jamie GaskinsJ 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • Cassandra is only carbon nowX Cassandra is only carbon now

                              @SnoopJ @jamie @aeva That was my read as well. IANAL, but my lay understanding was that even if the courts eventually don't act favorably towards an argument, that it exists and has precedent is enough to create legal risk?

                              SnoopJS This user is from outside of this forum
                              SnoopJS This user is from outside of this forum
                              SnoopJ
                              wrote last edited by
                              #40

                              @xgranade @jamie @aeva I think it's a much stronger case for the example rejected registrations that they show on the next page, which are exclusively about copyrightability of images.

                              It's largely legally untested AFAICT but based on how eagerly US courts have swallowed up the fair-use arguments of the vendors of these models, I don't have a lot of faith they would play hard-ball with a litigant who has code that has been established to have been generated, but who argues sufficiency from a "trust me, bro" perspective. (IANAL either, of course)

                              I would *love* to be wrong about that though, and I'm glad that the Copyright Office has drawn a clear line in the sand on the general matter (and wish more people in tech had read either the publications themselves, or this CRS summary of same)

                              aevaA 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • Jamie GaskinsJ Jamie Gaskins

                                If you use AI-generated code, you currently cannot claim copyright on it in the US. If you fail to disclose/disclaim exactly which parts were not written by a human, you forfeit your copyright claim on *the entire codebase*.

                                This means copyright notices and even licenses folks are putting on their vibe-coded GitHub repos are unenforceable. The AI-generated code, and possibly the whole project, becomes public domain.

                                Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB10922/LSB10922.8.pdf

                                ulveon.net (on derg.social)U This user is from outside of this forum
                                ulveon.net (on derg.social)U This user is from outside of this forum
                                ulveon.net (on derg.social)
                                wrote last edited by
                                #41

                                @jamie@zomglol.wtf and how do you know if something is AI?

                                Jamie GaskinsJ 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • SnoopJS SnoopJ

                                  @xgranade @jamie @aeva I think it's a much stronger case for the example rejected registrations that they show on the next page, which are exclusively about copyrightability of images.

                                  It's largely legally untested AFAICT but based on how eagerly US courts have swallowed up the fair-use arguments of the vendors of these models, I don't have a lot of faith they would play hard-ball with a litigant who has code that has been established to have been generated, but who argues sufficiency from a "trust me, bro" perspective. (IANAL either, of course)

                                  I would *love* to be wrong about that though, and I'm glad that the Copyright Office has drawn a clear line in the sand on the general matter (and wish more people in tech had read either the publications themselves, or this CRS summary of same)

                                  aevaA This user is from outside of this forum
                                  aevaA This user is from outside of this forum
                                  aeva
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #42

                                  @SnoopJ @xgranade @jamie ok, but i refuse to retract my pointing at the screen and nelson-from-the-simpsons-laugh that the original post inspired

                                  SnoopJS 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • Jamie GaskinsJ Jamie Gaskins

                                    @emma Oh yeah, shit's gonna get weird for a while and I think a lot of legislation going in during this administration as well as recent SCOTUS cases will need to be revisited. Ideally after also instituting laws around conflicts of interest with government officials that don't carve out exceptions for, oh I dunno, members of Congress, for example.

                                    Basically, I want the different branches of the government to fight each other again rather than the different parties.

                                    Emma needs β˜•οΈ and paying workE This user is from outside of this forum
                                    Emma needs β˜•οΈ and paying workE This user is from outside of this forum
                                    Emma needs β˜•οΈ and paying work
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #43

                                    @jamie the US needs a new constitution, but the right wingers, the religious gooners, and the billionaires should have no say in it.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • aevaA aeva

                                      @SnoopJ @xgranade @jamie ok, but i refuse to retract my pointing at the screen and nelson-from-the-simpsons-laugh that the original post inspired

                                      SnoopJS This user is from outside of this forum
                                      SnoopJS This user is from outside of this forum
                                      SnoopJ
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #44

                                      @aeva @xgranade @jamie agreed, you can have my HAW-HAW when you pry it from my cold dead throat

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • Jamie GaskinsJ Jamie Gaskins

                                        If you use AI-generated code, you currently cannot claim copyright on it in the US. If you fail to disclose/disclaim exactly which parts were not written by a human, you forfeit your copyright claim on *the entire codebase*.

                                        This means copyright notices and even licenses folks are putting on their vibe-coded GitHub repos are unenforceable. The AI-generated code, and possibly the whole project, becomes public domain.

                                        Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB10922/LSB10922.8.pdf

                                        garyG This user is from outside of this forum
                                        garyG This user is from outside of this forum
                                        gary
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #45

                                        @jamie china is the main producer of models with open weights, open source ai, china is pushing the evolution of ai forward - what's next? probably 10x compute for smb sector

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • Jamie GaskinsJ Jamie Gaskins

                                          If you use AI-generated code, you currently cannot claim copyright on it in the US. If you fail to disclose/disclaim exactly which parts were not written by a human, you forfeit your copyright claim on *the entire codebase*.

                                          This means copyright notices and even licenses folks are putting on their vibe-coded GitHub repos are unenforceable. The AI-generated code, and possibly the whole project, becomes public domain.

                                          Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB10922/LSB10922.8.pdf

                                          Celeste Ryder 🐾 πŸ€πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆB This user is from outside of this forum
                                          Celeste Ryder 🐾 πŸ€πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆB This user is from outside of this forum
                                          Celeste Ryder 🐾 πŸ€πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ
                                          wrote last edited by
                                          #46

                                          @jamie so… Windows is now fair game?

                                          Jamie GaskinsJ 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups