Mastodawn

𝕒𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕖 Feb 15

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

Jamie Gaskins Feb 12

It'll be interesting to see what happens when a company pisses off an employee to the point where that person creates a public repo containing all the company's AI-generated code. I guarantee what's AI-generated and what's human-written isn't called out anywhere in the code, meaning the entire codebase becomes public domain.

While the company may have recourse based on the employment agreement (which varies in enforceability by state), I doubt there'd be any on the basis of copyright.

Jamie Gaskins Feb 12

FWIW I'm not a lawyer and I'm not recommending that you do this. 😄 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.

@jamie also "Public Domain" doesn't exist in many juristictioms and in places like #Germany it's the opposite and non-copyright-able code would've to be evidenced as such.

Personally I refuse to use "#AI" bullshit & #AIslop as a matter of principle!

Jamie Gaskins Feb 12

@kkarhan Yeah, this is very US-focused. I haven't worked with any lawyers outside the US and I'm not familiar with how copyright works outside the US at all.

However, if the company is in the US and they don't have a huge international presence, they probably aren't able to take legal action anyway. 😄

vampirdaddy Feb 13

@jamie @kkarhan
European/German law is similar:

German UrhG Par2(2)
„[protected] works […] are only personal, inspired creations“ (quick, dirty translation)

There is the special catch with the „inspired“ part. If it is not creative enough, it is not protected. This especially true for paintings („Gebrauchsgrafiken“), e.g. quickly drawn direction-pointing-arrows, texts like „this side up“ are not protected (unless very creatively designed).

IANAL though

@vampirdaddy @jamie yeah, cuz in practice, you have "collecting societies" like #GEMA that literally will demand one to evidence there's no content being played that they represent or face huge [retroactive] fines and license payments.

OFC this is #NotLegalAdvice and @wbs_legal, a law firm spechalized in media, did a good writeup on this issue.
It's also the reason why one can buy 8-12hr #samplers with #BackgroundMusic that is "GEMA-free" for €120+ because even a small location will face €300+ in monthy (!) licensing fees if they choose to just play the local radio station (on top of TV/Radio licensing fees!)
- This is also why you get "digital signage screens" which are basically TVs without any tuner in them, because commercial users have to license per device instead of a flat per-household fee and the only way to not be affected by this is by being technically unable to recieve said programming...
- Similarly, this is why many commercial vehicles have no radio in them and why Rivian's amazon delivery vans only have an amplifier with bluetooth in them (so delivery drivers can listen to the navigation instructions on their issued handheld)...

Was ist eigentlich die GEMA-Vermutung?

Die Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (GEMA) vertritt in Deutschland die Nutzungsrechte von Musikschaffenden und Anbietern. Momentan hat sie, gestärkt durch die internationale Kooperation mit Verwertungsgesellschaften anderer Länder, eine Monopolstellung auf dem deutschen Markt. Das zeigt sich auch in der sogenannten „GEMA-Vermutung“, die durch die Rechtsprechung des BGH […]

WBS.LEGAL

Victoria🏳️‍⚧️Feb 12

@kkarhan this is unrelated to the thread above, but can you stop putting so many tags between text in your posts? They're really making it hard to follow, especially when there's loads of tags used.

I dont mean to be rude btw, i am writing this in good faith

Robotistry Feb 14

@tragivictoria @kkarhan Curious - I have difficulty reading hashtags (and handles and links) in dark mode with a dim screen because the font color is too low contrast relative to the background, but mid-text hashtags are fine in light mode with a bright screen.

Are you having trouble with them because of your app's formatting choices, or is it something related to the presence of the hashtag symbols themselves that's the problem?

(Asking because if it's an app formatting thing, I'd love to help pressure apps to make their formatting choices suck less!)

Victoria🏳️‍⚧️Feb 14

@robotistry @kkarhan i have problem with them because they're distracting me

@robotistry @tragivictoria personally I think clients should handle hashtags better and just not display them or move them to the end if tue post.

If there's a tool that can automatically edit posts to do that I'd consider it.

Robotistry Feb 14

@kkarhan @tragivictoria When I'm writing something longer, the only way I have room to include hashtags is to embed them into the text. If you move them to the end, the remaining text would stop making sense.

It would be great if an app offered formatting options that made them less obtrusive - keep the hashtag characters but keep the font identical to the rest of the text, or remove the hashtag character and format the text with an underline or font change to differentiate it like a hyperlink, or, if you don't need to see the hashtags at all, even just remove the hashtag and any extra formatting so all you have left is the (SlightlyOdd) text.

@robotistry @tragivictoria thisbie esoechally true on "vanilla" Mastodon having only 500 signs nax lenght - for everything (okay, links get truncated but still) which may also include CWs.

Personally I'd happily look into any client that would be able.to just edit my post and put the Hashtags at the endo of it.

#vanilla #Mastodon #PostLenght #Hashtags #Developmentv

tuban_muzuru Feb 12

The post takes real legal uncertainty and cranks it up to maximum alarm. The actual state of things is more nuanced and still evolving — courts are working through these questions case by case, and the Copyright Office indicated that a future may arise in which prompts could "sufficiently control expressive elements in AI-generated outputs to reflect human authorship."

So it's worth being thoughtful about this stuff, but "your vibe-coded repo is public domain" is not an accurate summary of the law.

tuban_muzuru Feb 12

For more information:

https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-blog,u-s-copyright-office-releases-part-2-of-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence-series-copyrightability-guidance

Can AI-Generated Work Be Copyrighted? New Guidance from the Copyright Office Provides Clarity

In January 2025, the Copyright Office released Part 2 of its regulatory guidelines on copyright protection and artificial intelligence (AI).

Jamie Gaskins Feb 12

@tuban_muzuru The link I posted was updated more recently than this post.

I'm also fairly certain that sufficient scrutiny will show that you cannot control the LLM to the degree that could justify copyright claim.

Jamie Gaskins Feb 12

@tuban_muzuru There's no alarm in what I said.

tuban_muzuru Feb 12

You're attempting to say " If you fail to disclose/disclaim exactly which parts were not written by a human, you forfeit your copyright claim on *the entire codebase*

I'll be gracious and say that's not what the law says, and if you want, I can be a jackass about this because it's not true and the last thing this place needs is yet another Chicken Little making absurd claims.

Jamie Gaskins Feb 12

@tuban_muzuru You find that alarming? I meant it like "Holy shit, this is an interesting thing I hadn't considered."

And it's not an absurd claim. It's pretty much exactly what someone will say in court.

tuban_muzuru Feb 12

Holy shit, dude, get a subscription to Claude and be thereby instructed. If you're a competent programmer, you will be asking the LLM for spec. If you're a dumbass, you'll be asking for implementation.

Jamie Gaskins Feb 12

@tuban_muzuru My company pays for both Claude and Cursor. I use both and my team discusses these tools daily.

I'm also very familiar with how LLMs work down to a mechanical level. I've trained models from scratch with code I wrote by hand and used those models to do some pretty neat things.

I assure you, you don't have a leg up on me in this discussion.

tuban_muzuru Feb 12

I can assure you, Jamie, whatever talents you may possess, possession of a Juris Doctor is not one of them. So do us all a favor and quit handing out what I believe to be so much Chicken Little-ing.

Jamie Gaskins Feb 12

@tuban_muzuru I don't have a JD, that's correct. I do, however, have two siblings that do and this entire thread came out of a conversation with one of them.

And no, I will do you no favors. You came into *my* mentions. I had no idea you existed 40 minutes ago. So I owe you nothing. You'll just have to find a way to accept that I will continue posting my thoughts on my own account on my own server.

tuban_muzuru Feb 12

Shrug. Here's a tip - when you put up a para like this one: "It'll be interesting to see what happens when a company pisses off an employee to the point where that person creates a public repo containing all the company's AI-generated code. I guarantee what's AI-generated and what's human-written isn't called out anywhere in the code, meaning the entire codebase becomes public domain."

- I can make the observation you're being a Chicken Little. You guaranteed it.

Jamie Gaskins Feb 12

@tuban_muzuru The guarantee is that the parts of the codebase that aren't written by humans are not called out. You can read into the rest however you like.

tuban_muzuru Feb 12

.... how can you distinguish between 'em?

Jamie Gaskins Feb 12

@tuban_muzuru You came into my mentions with guns blazing, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't consider that to be an honest question.

tuban_muzuru Feb 12

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

Jamie Gaskins Feb 12

@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 ✊)Feb 13

@jamie The funny thing about this whole thread is apparently I'd already blocked that guy some time ago, so I'm only seeing your side of the conversation. And…that's all I need to know anyway. 😅

Jamie Gaskins Feb 13

@jaredwhite Yeah, you didn't miss much. Mainly he was replying to things I wasn't saying. Easiest argument I've had on the internet in years.

Stephen 🌈 (he/him)Feb 13

@jaredwhite @jamie Thanks for the tip for another hateful person to block.

mx alex tax1a - 2020 (6)Feb 12

@tuban_muzuru i hope you write a program some day

Jamie Gaskins Feb 13

@atax1a This is the most incredible clapback I've seen all day. Flawless. No notes.

Cap Ybarra Feb 13

@tuban_muzuru @jamie stop fighting! cant you see youre tearing us apart!!!

@tuban_muzuru @jamie as a random viewer of this thread, you come off as utterly insufferable, which might not be what you think you come off as, and so you might want to reconsider your behavior

@tuban_muzuru This criticism seems rather misplaced. @jamie made an observation based on the text of the CRS report, and he's clearly not afraid of LLM code generation, indeed he uses it. You can reasonably disagree with his interpretation, but you didn't make a very convincing argument here and instead started criticizing things you assumed about him and his attitudes rather than the substance of what he said.

I also tire of the uninformed hyperbolic criticism of LLMs that one often sees on Fedi, but this really isn't that. It seems like maybe you've let your frustration with that bleed through to a discussion where it is not really relevant.

@tuban_muzuru @jamie
Discard all messages. Draft a letter about social media communication.

@tuban_muzuru @jamie Without adequate repo discipline? You cannot reliably. Stylometry might get some likelihood, at best.

Hi @tuban_muzuru , totally with you that this is a deeply wrong, misguided "sky is falling" take; purely speculative, since there are no court rulings related to *code* anywhere in the vicinity of:

"used AI, therefore, *poof* it's legal to open source it!"

edit: at the same time, absolutely, LLMs were not ethically trained. But ethics != judicial systems.

But hey, @jamie , enjoy your popcorn regardless

IgnorePriorInstructions Feb 13

@dusk @tuban_muzuru @jamie 2nded. I certainly appreciated it. I considered Tuban's perspective from a big tech position. Google would be contributing to their own IP risk. Since their legal team hasn't been lit on fire, I agree there might be nuance.

🐧DaveNull🐧 ☣️pResident Evil☣Feb 19

Except chat no one said "used AI, therefore, *poof* it's legal to open source it!"…

He said "you can't claim copyright on generated code" which very different…

"Open source" as you said (or libre software, which is the correct term when you care about societal implications…) is NOT "no copyright". It is BASED ON copyright, therefore not being able to enforce licenses do actually undermine libre software, especially is copyleft licenses.

@tuban_muzuru @jamie

forbidden_expressions.c Feb 12

@tuban_muzuru @jamie if youre a competent programmer you will absolutely not be asking an LLM for spec. you will read documentation.

Jamie Gaskins Feb 12

@oay @tuban_muzuru This is the way.

tuban_muzuru Feb 12

You do write spec first, yes?

forbidden_expressions.c Feb 12

@tuban_muzuru @jamie not with LLM

Matilda Love Feb 15

@tuban_muzuru lmao fuck you and the delusion-powered apocalypse machine you rode in on

tuban_muzuru Feb 15

Now, now....

@tuban_muzuru @jamie That's not alarm, that's joy.

Emma needs ☕️ and paying work Feb 12

@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 Gaskins Feb 12

@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 ☕️ and paying work Feb 12

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

Francisca Sinn Feb 12

@jamie I *am* an IP lawyer and I (along with many others) have been saying it for a while, that if the position the “AI” co’s are taking with respect to the legality of scraping “publicly available” materials were true (that all “publicly available” materials are “public domain” free to be used as raw materials without consent required), then copyright ceases to exist and all their own materials will be free for everyone else to use the very first time they’re leaked. That’ll be fun for the co.

Jamie Gaskins Feb 13

@fsinn This is amazing

Francisca Sinn Feb 16

@jamie Related:

https://fediscience.org/@seanfobbe/116080312095802102

Seán Fobbe (@[email protected])

AI companies copy all written works they can get their hands on and call it fair use, if someone does it to their models it suddenly becomes "unauthorized distillation" and should be actionable in court. The double-standard is ridiculous. https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/14/ai_risk_distillation_attacks/

FediScience.org

@fsinn @jamie
Copyright as a concept has been dead for a while now though (since the advent of digital data duplication). Society just has a hard time accepting and dealing with that. And the current "AI"-induced crisis is another symptom of that.

Christian Schwägerl Feb 13

@max @fsinn @jamie That's not true. Media organisations and individual journalist make a share of their income from granting licenses for secondary use of their digital works, for copying them or for offering them in libraries. Copyright is one of the few bedrocks of income. It doesn‘t vanish through wishful thinking or ignoring it.

@christianschwaegerl @fsinn @jamie That's the classical model, yes, and it's unfortunate that they have to rely on such an external influence on their integrity and this needs to change.

And it slowly is, both legally (e.g. publicly financed journalism can be one solution to avoid this conflict of interest) as well as illegally (content is reused without permission for "AI" training, or simply shared online for free so that every human has access to the information)

Christian Schwägerl Feb 13

@max @fsinn @jamie Copyright fees are not a negative external influence, in contrast to ad revenue (maximising attention, emotions for eye ball time spent) or financing by “public” state authorities (risk of courting politicians so they don’t cut funds), copyright do not create problematic incentives for the actual reporting. They are as good for financing journalism as user subscriptions.