Taggart14h ago

I have what may be a very ignorant question: if model-generated code may not be copyrighted due to a requirement of human authorship (current US Copyright Office policy), does it therefore follow that model-generated code may not be licensed under any terms whatsoever? Meaning anything from MIT to GPLv3?

I recognize no answers here would constitute legal advice, but I would love to hear from legal experts on this.

Show threadMichael Terry
@mttaggart if you modify the code, you own copyright to your modifications and can license the combined package of generated code and your code.

“[H]uman authors should be able to claim copyright if they
select, coordinate, and arrange AI-generated material in a creative way. This would provide
protection for the output as a whole (although not the AI-generated material alone).”

From pdf page 32 of part 2 of this US report on copyright and AI: https://www.copyright.gov/policy/artificial-intelligence/
Artificial Intelligence Study | U.S. Copyright Office

Artificial Intelligence Study

6:20pmWeb
Show threadTaggart13h ago
@mikix That's super interesting. So a codebase that was generative, then heavily refactored by human hands is eligible. That makes sense! But anything that is mostly generative would still seem to lack copyright protections.
Show threadGlyph13h ago
@mikix @mttaggart thanks so much for the citation! this has been my supposition but it's good to have something official-ish to point at.
Show threadTaggart13h ago
@glyph @mikix Important to note that this document comprises mostly comments on policy, not policy itself. But the established norm of human rearrangement would stand.
Show threadGlyph13h ago
@mttaggart @mikix indeed. on policy *itself* I think we are still kind of in the dark. but copyright law in general is far more of a mess than most engineers believe anyway
Show threadJames Hubbard13h ago

@glyph @mttaggart @mikix There was this recent case where the human wasn't able to get copyright on AI generated artwork. We won't know until something actually goes before the Supreme Court.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-declines-hear-dispute-over-copyrights-ai-generated-material-2026-03-02/

Show threadGlyph12h ago
@jameshubbard @mttaggart @mikix refusing to grant cert *is* a supreme court decision, though
Show threadJames Hubbard11h ago
@glyph @mttaggart @mikix yes but in this case it was more of a piece of art not code. If SCOTUS refuses to hear a case about code that goes similarly, we'll have an answer at least temporarily.
Show threadZimmie10h ago
@mttaggart @glyph @mikix It may be useful to consider music licensing. Rearrangements, remixes, and records which sample other records are considered derivative works of the original record. Covers and parodies are considered unique records derived to varying extents from the original songwriting.
Show threadFritz Adalis10h ago
@bob_zim @mttaggart @glyph @mikix
I didn't pirate Windows, it's a parody!