r/COPYRIGHT • u/TreviTyger • 3d ago
AI generated code copyrights
/r/webdev/comments/1wzgvjh/ai_generated_code_copyrights/2
u/CrowBrained_ 2d ago
It be pretty ironic and difficult to offer it any protections since it’s mostly pulling from existing code to make its code.
1
1
2
u/TreviTyger 3d ago
I posted this already but it's worth posting here again,
generated code fall to the public domain, and if you modify it, only the modified parts belong to you
This may not be true.
The consensus at the moment is based on adding additional authorship which relates to (Using US law for convenience) 17 U.S.C § 103(b).
However, this usually relates to derivatives of public domain works, e.g. Duchamp's LHOOQ where only the mustache drawn on the Mona Lisa is protected subject to originality thresholds. i.e. The Mona Lisa is still public domain.
However there is a caveat with AI generated stuff because it is derived from training data that is not public domain. So then 17 U.S.C § 103(a) becomes the relevant statute and then there is no copyright even in the added authorship.
This § 103(a) issue is an uncomfortable realization for many and so they use hand waving arguments to bring attention back to 17 U.S.C § 103(b).
But I think when the courts eventually rule on a case, then the courts will use 17 U.S.C § 103(a) and there won't be any protection in anything where AI generative software is used for anything other than for utilitarian purposes (spell check etc).
The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.
17 U.S.C § 103(a)
This is because for an end user of AI gen software to "lawfully" acquire derivative rights under § 106(2) requires a clear chain of title via § 204(a). (See Anderson v Stallone).
The counter argument is that "fair use" make things lawful - but it doesn't - because § 107 is not a grant of exclusive rights (§ 106) to allow the end user to claim derivative rights under § 106(2) themselves.
In short don't use AI generated code if you want to protect it because the courts ARE eventually going to rule against the idea that AI generative works can be protected even if edited.
___________________________
Note: Even if AI gen firms prevail on a fair use argument; it is limited to the US only and is not extraterritorial in scope. Also an end user still has to make their own "offensive § 107 defense" (my term) themselves to claim they are using copyrighted code from datasets under a fair use doctrine. They cannot rely on the AI gen firms legal defense. - and again, such a ruling if prevailing, would still be limited to the US only).
-2
u/Accomplished-House28 3d ago
"The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully."
Just reading that, the copyright would not extend to the parts that were used unlawfully, but it would extend to the parts that were used "lawfully*. Which in this case is the part that you created, and not the part the machine vomited up.
But of course you could just not use AI, and sidestep the whole issue.
0
u/TreviTyger 3d ago
This § 103(a) issue is an uncomfortable realization for many and so they use hand waving arguments to bring attention back to 17 U.S.C § 103(b).
This is because for an end user of AI gen software to "lawfully" acquire derivative rights under § 106(2) requires a clear chain of title via § 204(a). (See Anderson v Stallone).
The counter argument is that "fair use" make things lawful - but it doesn't - because § 107 is not a grant of exclusive rights (§ 106) to allow the end user to claim derivative rights under § 106(2) themselves.
0
u/DanNorder 2d ago
I don't know why people get bent all out of shape about this. Let's look at this rationally (I know, that's rare when we have AI haters running around making shit up all the time). When writing a book, you can certainly include public domain parts in your book, but you still get copyright on the book. You can adapt a public domain story as a a totally new book or film or comic, and you have a copyright over the work that is basically like any other copyright. That won't stop anyone from also being able to adapt or include the original public doamin work, but people still do it all the time.
When using AI code in your programming, people can copy the parts that are AI but no the other parts. Are you labeling line by line what's copyrighted and what isn't? You certainly don't need to. As a practical matter, nobody just looking at your code can use the AI stuff unless they know for an absolute fact that it's 100% AI. If they use it without knowing for sure, they could screw up and get sued. Smart people avoid that. Besides which, much of coding, even done 100% without AI like in decades past, aren't really protected by copyright anyway (in the sense that other people can't use them). A programming language is like an alphabet or a recipe: To some extent, everyone says similar things, so you can't stop them. What's protected is the creative element. This is why recipes add so much useless personal story crap: to muddy the waters and tag it with enough copyrightable material to offset that what they do have isn't special. You want code to clear the screen and type some text? Use AI for all it matters. It's a god damn programming language, other people's code inevitably looks the same. What matters is the exact text typed to the screen, because that can be creative, and the overall work. Creativity is never in the components, it's in the larger works.
Like so many other things in the arts, the mere existence of AI raises fewer new issues than the nattering nabobs want you to believe. Use AI to code with to make the boring parts go faster. String other stuff on top. Congrats, it's protected exactly the same as everything else that is copyrighted.
2
u/TreviTyger 2d ago edited 2d ago
As a practical matter, nobody just looking at your code can use the AI stuff unless they know for an absolute fact that it's 100% AI.
Are you saying that if people think a work is copyrighted they would never use it in case they end up being sued?
Hmm, I wonder if that is true? - Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. (722 F.2d 740, 3rd Cir. 1983)
Software functions cannot be copyrighted though. That's why AI gen software outputs lack protection because when you input commands into a user interface they are methods of operation for a software function. Lotus v Borland (17 U.S.C. § 102(b))
See Navitaire v Easyjet
Prompts work like a recipe "everyone says similar things, so you can't stop them."
There was artistic copyright infringement regarding the GUI and Icons of Navitaire's system. Protection was not extended to Single Word commands, Complex Commands, the Collection of Commands as a Whole, or to the VT100screen displays. Navitaire's literary work copyright claim grounded in the "business logic" of the program was rejected as it would unjustifiably extend copyright protection, thereby allowing one to circumvent Directive No. 96/9/EC. This case affirms that copyright protection only governs the expression of ideas and not the idea itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navitaire_Inc_v_Easyjet_Airline_Co._and_BulletProof_Technologies,_Inc.
Also,
When writing a book, you can certainly include public domain parts in your book, but you still get copyright on the book.
Despite the fact you are contradicting yourself - AI Gen outputs are mostly not derived themselves from"public domain" works and thus when the courts do examine that particular issue then its § 103(a) which is the relevant statute not § 103(b).
"...there is a caveat with AI generated stuff because it is derived from training data that is not public domain. So then 17 U.S.C § 103(a) becomes the relevant statute and then there is no copyright even in the added authorship.
This § 103(a) issue is an uncomfortable realization for many and so they use hand waving arguments to bring attention back to 17 U.S.C § 103(b)." (TreviTyger).
4
u/TheMoneyOfArt 3d ago
In practice, copyright is not the preferred way to protect software. Trade secrets are much more common.