> The US Copyright Office confirmed this in January 2025, and the Supreme Court declined to disturb it in March 2026 when it turned away the Thaler appeal. Works predominantly generated by AI without meaningful human authorship are not eligible for copyright protection, and that rule is now settled at the highest judicial level available.

Misstates the law. Denial of certiorari can happen for many reasons unrelated to the merits and does not settle the issue nationwide.

Personally, I think that the human directing the agent owns the copyright for whatever is produced, but the ability for the agent to build it in the first place is based off of stolen IP.

I'm concerned about the copyright 'washing' this enables though, especially in OSS, and I think the right thing for OSS devs to do is to try to publish resulting code with the strongest copyleft licensing that they are comfortable with - https://jackson.dev/post/moral-ai-licensing/

I want this question to have an interesting answer, but everyone knows that if this question ever goes to the courts, ownership will go to the people in charge with the money. The idea that Anthropic may not own Claude Code just because Claude wrote it is wishful thinking.

This is the same shape as the image cases.

Zarya of the Dawn already settled it for Midjourney output: human-written elements were protected, AI-generated images were not. The character design didn't get copyright even though the human picked, prompted, and curated. Code isn't different. Prompting Claude to produce a function is closer to prompting Midjourney to produce a frame than to writing the function yourself.

The reason it feels different to engineers is that we're used to thinking of the compiler as the analogy. But a compiler is deterministic — same input, same output. An LLM isn't. That's the line the Copyright Office is drawing, and image cases got there first.

> Here is the legal baseline, in plain terms:

This particular AI-ism really encapsulates what annoys me about some AI-isms. I don't mind the delves and the em-dashes that just give away the AI source of what otherwise might be good text. But these structural pieces just feel fundamentally not for the reader. Part of it is blatant pick-me language for the human feedback ("hey look you wanted plain language I did that") and part of it feels like it's just helping the future token stream (thinking-like tokens polluting the actual text).

The not-this-but-that, the sycophancy, the symbolizing-vague-significance, they all have this flavor of serving a process that's no longer there as I now need to read it. It gives a similar sickening feeling to the one I get seeing something designed by committee.

That's quite impressive approach from the companies' perspective. Let's first use claude code and then we'll think who the code belongs to.

I think that the gold rush approach happening right now around me (my company EMs forcing me to work with claude as fast as possible) show really short-sight of all the management people.

First - I lose my understanding of the code base by relying too much on claude code.

Second - we drop all the good coding practices (like XP, code review etc.) because claude is reviewing claude's code.

Third - we just take a big smelly dump on the teamwork - it's easier and cheaper to let one developer drive the whole change from backend to frontend, despite there are (or were) two different teams - one for FE, one for BE.

Fourth - code commenting was passe, as the code is documentation itself... Unless... there is a problem with the context (which is). So when the people were writing the code, they would not understand the over-engineered code because of their fault. But now we make a step back for our beloved claude because it has small context... It's unfair treatment.

I could go on and on. And all those cultural changes are because of money. So I dub this "goldrush", open my popcorn and see what happens next.

it's well known that recipes cannot be copyrighted. But recipes still are protected intellectual property by trade secret law if they are treated as a secret by the holder of the recipe.

Claude code itself is a trade secret, and it is not open source, so its own copyrightability is moot till you get your hands on a copy of it with clean hands.

Recipes cannot be copyrighted because they are not expressions of human creativity. Software written by AIs are also not expressions of human creativity, so the balance is tilted in favor of AI generated copy not being copyrightable.

The Supreme Court or legislation could change this, and I'd guess there will be a movement to go in that direction, but till something like that succeeded it's not so.

This is all well and good as an intellectual exercise, but in real life none of this matters. Almost no one thinks their code is copyrightable or seriously thinks their code is a moat. I've written the same chunks of code for a number of employers as has every engineer. We've all taken chunks from stack overflow and other places without carefully considering attribution.

This comes up in a few places as a kind of vindictive battle. One example is Oracle suing Google for too closely mimicking their API in Android. Here is an example:

> private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex) {

    if (fromIndex > toIndex)

        throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + 

fromIndex +

                                           ") > toIndex(" + 

toIndex + ")");

    if (fromIndex < 0)

        throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex);

    if (toIndex > arrayLen)

        throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex);

}

And it was deemed fair use by the Supreme Court. Other times high frequency hedge funds sued exiting employees, sometimes successfully. In America, anyone can sue you for any reason, so sure, you'll have Ellison take a feud up with Page and Brin all the way up to the Supreme Court.

In 99.9% of instances none of this matter. Sure there's the technical letter of the law but in practice, and especially now, none of this matters.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf

I think it should be pretty clear that if you provided the tool the specification for the code you want, you have already provided creative input.

After all, is this not what happens with compilers as well? LLM agents are just quite advanced compilers that don't require the specification to be as detailed as with traditional compilers.

I wrote an R library doing some simple regressions using the GPU, with Claude. I asked it to provide the same API as lm, glm and some other base R functions. It copied their code wholesale without mentioning it to me. So, now my library is GPL… which is not a big deal in this context, but it was quite a shock.

This is of course assuming you take AI-generated code unchanged. But you don't, in my experience. And that generates a new work fully copyrightable even if the original wasn't. Just like how the fad a decade or so ago of taking Tolstoy and Jane Austen works and adding new elements -- "Android Karenina" and "Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters" are copyrighted works even if the majority of the text in them was from public domain sources.

My opinion, copyright has mattered very little in the corporate world. Copyright is effectively meaningless with SaaS, and the compiled software ran on your machine is protected more by technical controls and EULAs. A world where copyright didn't exist for software would look nearly the same for the commercial world. Trade secrets, NDAs, and employment contracts bind workers more than copyright. The only thing that the question of copyright has real world impact is open source, but even then only for more restrictive licenses such as gpl.

Three things matter when it comes to eating my breakfast sandwich:

1/ Was the pork in my sausage reared on a farm that meets agricultural standards?

2/ Was the food handled safely by the kitchen that cooked my food?

3/ Does the owner of the diner pay kitchen wages in accordance with labor law?

By contrast, I have no idea what went into the models I use, what system prompts have prejudiced it, and whose IP has been exploited in pursuit of my answer.

That’s being charitable, really. In practice the open secret of the AI industry is that the vast majority of training data, for want of a better word even if it is likely to be the most precise description, is stolen data.

That was a rather unhelpful TL;DR.

One question I have is this: if an employee produces code predominantly generated by AI, it means that it is not copyrightable. Does that mean that the employee can take that code and publish it on the Internet?

Or is it still IP even if it is not copyrightable? That would feel weird: if it's in the public domain, then it's not IP, is it?

More interesting question is "Who wants to own it"...

The answer is probably "Nobody"!

> What to preserve: Commit messages that describe what you changed and why, not just what the AI generated. “Restructured Claude’s module architecture, rejected initial state management approach, rewrote error handling from scratch” is evidence. “Add rate limiting module” is not.

> The second commit message versus the first is the difference between a defensible authorship claim and a clean “Claude wrote this” record.

That makes no sense to me, as the commit message is probably LLM generated as well. (and even easier to generate as it doesn't have to compile or pass automated tests).

This is a big question that makes my employer nervous about using LLM-generated code, along with the even-more-unresolved question "what happens if the LLM outputs an algorithm that is protected by patent?" (particularly worrying because we know the base training included patent descriptions.) Questionable copyright can often be worked around (particularly since we don't distribute source) but infringing on a patent can destroy a company.

I’m no lawyer but I feel that meta, my employer, wouldn’t be letting us go hog-wild with Claude code if they weren’t completely confident that they fully owned the outputs, whether we change it or not.

The M&A angle is the one that's actually going to force clarity on this. Most companies using AI tooling haven't thought about it at all until a term sheet shows up with an IP rep they can't back up. That's when "who owns this" stops being a philosophy question.

Seems to gloss over other kinds of contamination, beyond GPL code. Code from pirated text books, the problem with the entire language model being trained on copyright data, and on the possibility of the training data containing various copyrighted code.

Nobody disputes that I own the copyright in a sound recording I made just by pushing the red button on my recorder. So it is a mystery to me that copyright to any sort of human conditioned machine generation is in dispute.

Lawyers I have spoken to have stated strongly that they believe collective works doctrine will provide strong protections for most mature and sizable software. I see no mention of these considerations here.

"if Claude was trained on the LGPL-licensed codebase and its output reflects patterns learned from that code, can the output be treated as license-free? The emerging legal consensus is probably not, and assuming it can creates significant liability for anyone shipping that code commercially."

Is there any citation for this "legal consensus"? I was not aware there was any evidence backed stances on this topic as of yet

Ownership is one question. IMO, a more interesting question is who is responsible when the code does some real-life damage.

The elephant in the room, of course, is what constitutes “meaningful human authorship.” However, I cannot shake off the feeling that all user interactions with these AI models are being logged. Perhaps this may turn out to be the bigger concern in a potential legal battle than code authorship.

> Code that Claude Code or Cursor generated and you accepted without meaningful modification may not be copyrightable by anyone.

Except if it happens to regurgitate a significant excerpt of some existing work, then the authors of that can assert their copyright; i.e. claim that it infringes.

I think it's pretty clear cut, whoever is paying for your agentic coding tool subscription is part of the litmus test.

I use my own computer, I pay for my own subscription and I build my open source projects then the code belongs to me.

If I use my company's computer, they pay for my subscription and we work on the company's projects then the code belongs to the company.

In any step of the way if some copy-left or any other form of exotic open source license is violated, who pays for discovery? Is it someone in Russia who created a popular OSS library that is now owed? How will it be enforced?

Normally this solved with an employment contract: "Anything you write, the copyright is transferred to your employer"

If you want to go much deeper, https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ is particularly good at least on the side of comprehensiveness.

Article is incredibly fear mongering.

Twice in my career the owners of a company have wanted to sue competitors for stealing their "product" after poaching our staff.

Each time, the lawyers came in and basically told us that suing them for copyright is suicide, will inevitably be nearly impossible to prove, and money would be better spent in many other areas.

In fact, we ended up suing them (and they settled) for stealing our copyrighted clinical content, which they copied so blatantly they left our own typos and customer support phone number in it.

Go ahead, try to sue over your copyrighted code, 10 years and 100M later you will end up like Google v Oracle. What if the code is even 5% different? What about elements dictated by external constraints; hardware, industry standards, common programming practices, these aren't copyrightable.

Then you have merger doctrine, how many ways can we really represent the same basic functions?

Same goes with the copyleft argument, "code resembling copyleft" is incredibly vague, it would need to be verbatim the code, not resembling. Then you have the history of copyleft, there have been many abuses of copyleft and only ~10 notable lawsuits. Now because AI wrote it (which makes it _even harder_ to enforce), we will see a sudden outburst of copyleft cases? I doubt it.

Ultimately anyone can sue you for any reason, nothing is stopping anyone right now from suing you claiming AI stole their copyleft code.

Did Claude Code not start out as human input? Would it not be safe to say that a reasonable amount of it is still human input? But also, just because its mysteriously "not theirs" doesn't mean they magically have to give you the code.

Tangential but I find this an interesting parallel from a few years ago:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/musicians-algorithmically-ge...

This is like asking:

"Who owns the text microsoft word helped you write?"

Claude code is a software tool not a legal entity.

Good overview of the issues. I'm sure there are a few nits to pick with that.

But something that is overlooked is that the world is bigger than the US and it's an absolute zoo out there in terms of copyright laws in different countries. Anything you think you might understand about this topic goes out of the window if you have international customers or provide software services outside the US. Or are not actually based there to begin with. And there are treaties between countries to consider as well.

Courts tend to try to be consistent with previous rulings, interpretations, etc. When it comes to copyright, there are a few centuries of such rulings. The commonly held opinions among developers that aren't lawyers are that AI is somehow different. And of course since the law hasn't actually changed, the simple legal question then becomes "How?". And the answer to that seems to involve a lot of different notions.

For example, "AIs are not people, and therefore any content produced by them isn't covered by copyright to begin with" is one of the notions brought up in the article. A lawyer might have some legal nits to pick with that one but it seems to broadly be the common interpretation. So AI's don't violate copyright by doing what they do. In the same way you can't charge a Xerox machine with copyright infringements. Or Xerox. But you could go after a person using one.

And another notion is that any content distributed by a human can be infringing on somebody else's copyright and that party can try to argue their case in a court and ask for compensation. Note that that sentence doesn't involve the word AI in any way. How the infringing party creates/copies the content is actually irrelevant. Either it infringes or it doesn't. You could be using AI, a Tibetan Monk copying things by hand, trained monkeys hitting the keyboard randomly, a photo copier, or whatever. It does not really matter from a legal point of view. All that matters is that you somehow obtained a copy of an apparently copyrighted work. AI is just yet another way to create copies and not in any way special here.

There are of course lots of legal fine points to make to how models are trained, how training data is handled, etc. But if you break each of those down it boils down to "this large blob of random numbers doesn't really resemble the shape or form of some copyrighted thing" and "Anthropic used dodgy means to get their hands on copies of copyrighted work". I actually received a letter inviting me to claim some money back from them recently, like many other copyright holders.

Missed opportunity for a tongue twister:

Who coded the code Claude Code code?

Maybe the useful test is not “who wrote this line?” but “can you show how it went from requirement/prompt/context to diff to human review/tests?” If you can’t, ownership is only one issue. You also can’t tell what was accepted as engineering work versus just copied output.

On a related note, another question: who owns the paper that Claude (or OpenAI) wrote? Should such paper submissions in conferences call out the model(s) used to write the paper itself?

This seems to be grounded in US law. Does anyone know if the same rules would apply in eg EU law?

i do, all of it. sorry

You don't but nevertheless you bear the responsibility of making it public (whether in soyrce or binary form). That is what Anthropic would like.

The "if you generated the code at work using company tools, it's owned by your employer" affirmation in the article makes no sense to me?

If computer generated code is not copyrightable, ownership cannot be reassigned either.

Well I don't own anything I write while working on my company. Maybe my company and Claude can fight over who owns it.

Your employer can claim your code if you use their tools to produce it. Nothing new here. This has nothing to do with AI tooling.

It seems that author unironically advises to write your commit messages like this: "Restructured Claude’s module architecture, rejected initial state management approach, rewrote error handling from scratch", to have a chance at defense in potential court hearing. I find it funny, if vindicating for my personal approach. If the expectation is to "restructure, reject, rewrite" what "AI" spits out, why use "AI" at all at this point???

First answer who owns the model built with public data

I'm still flabbergasted that people – and big, visible companies with big targets on their backs – choose to keep on using the output of LLMs without having an answer to these questions.

And I'm worried that once that has been sufficiently normalized, laws and interpretations of them will adapt to whatever best suits those users. Which will mean copyrightwashing of FOSS. My only hope then is that surely if free software can be copyright-washed by the big guys, then so can the little guy copyright-wash the big guys' blockbuster movies or whatever, which might lead to some sort of reckoning.

The idea that the provenance of a given tool's code inherently pollutes the material it's used with seems kind of illogical. Wouldn't it follow from this premise that any code written using open source IDEs and debugged with open source debuggers and other tooling would itself then be considered copyleft? Are works written with LibreOffice not copyrightable?

There's obviously a huge issue with the legitimacy and ownership of training data being fed to LLMs. That seems like an issue between the owners of that IP and the people training the models and selling them as services more than the people using the tool. Isn't this just another flavor of SCO trying to extort money out of companies using Linux?

the entire US economy rides on AI. no ruling throwing a wrench into the multi trillion engine is ever going to be permitted to happen

IMO this is the greatest argument against AI as technofascism. The general public seems to believe that AI will usher in technofascism by claiming corporate ownership of AI output: the independent entrepreneur will be unable to compete against the corporations compute, every piece of data about you will be stolen and monetized by AI, and you will own nothing.

But AI might in fact do the exact opposite and reverse the privatization trend that the West has been going through for the last 400 years. All of our copyright laws rely on the idea that there is a human consciousness behind the copyright. The more AI has input, the less we can claim ownership. If AI returns everything to the commons, then it results in a much more egalitarian world.

Hilariously, many people, especially artists, see the return of the commons as an assault against them. They’re so captured by copyright that they assume any infringement on their copyright is inherently fascist. It’s ridiculous. Copyright is a corporations number 1 weapon when it comes to creating a moat and keeping the masses out.

The original intent of copyright, in fact, was an incentive to return an idea to the commons. Experts used to hide their discoveries in order to keep them for themselves. Copyright provided an opportunity to release this knowledge and still profit. There were even several cases where it was established that those who claimed copyright could retain copyright even if the idea had been previously discovered. This created a huge incentive: release the knowledge or risk having your process copyrighted by the opposition. But that system worked because copyright could only exist for so long (14 years, doubled if they filed again.)

Now copyright is a lifelong sentence at almost 100 years. The entire purpose of it has been undermined. Corporations own all your childhood and by the time you can profit off of it, it’s outdated.

A world where the mainstream is primarily a commons seems to me like an egalitarian world. I’d like to live in that world.

Copyright has a lot to do with what we as a society want to protect and encourage. We want to protect an author that put the hours into creating a book, as opposed to the person creating a copy of that work. The person copying can claim they put in work too but the claim is not strong enough to override our preference to protect original authors.

Part of the problem with generated works is that it is lower effort like the person copying something. It’s not an activity that demands special protection like original authorship. I believe this is a large part of the reasoning.

Whoever pays for the tokens.

What if no meaningful thought was put into the code (entirely vibe-coded slop), but it’s made for your employer? Shouldn’t the work be uncopyrightable?

I do. I used a tool to create it. I own the things I create.

Anything else is just bullshit equivocation.

LLMs are just tools we use. If I program an app in C++, do I not own the rights to the executable because my compiler wrote machine code for me?

There is no such thing as ownership of a pattern of information. It has been an illusion, and that illusion is now fading.

It’s the same as photography. No photographer built the multibillion dollar supply chain for the optics train in a camera, nor did they build the city scape they are enjoying as a background, they simply set the stage and push a button.

I have a wood cutting machine and some wood. Who owns the timber?

yo Mama

-Claude

Could you please stop posting generated comments to HN? It's not allowed here, and it looks like you've done it over 30 times already.

(Of course, there's no way to be certain of this, but it's what our software thinks, and the overall pattern is pretty convincing.)

See https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#generated and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079

Ask chatgpt deep research citing court cases and it shows dark factory swe code are not copyrightable under current precedents.

Even steering it with prompts isn't enough. The guy couldn't copyright the image he made with ai, code is no different.

Maybe prompts written by humans are copyrightable.

Can't wait for the Billionaires to entrench in court they can steal everything for these machines and claim it as their own and maybe even reach for anything that it helps produce. Fuck that

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[dead]

[dead]

[flagged]

[dead]