Taggart13h 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 Terry12h ago
@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

Show threadGlyph11h 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 threadTaggart11h 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 threadZimmie
@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.
9:40pmWeb
Show threadFritz Adalis8h ago
@bob_zim @mttaggart @glyph @mikix
I didn't pirate Windows, it's a parody!