the ai copy pasted the existing project. How can such a procedure not fall under copyright?

Especially now that ai can do this for any kind of intellectual property, like images, books or sourcecode. If judges would allow an ai rewrite to count as an original creation, copyright as we know it completely ends world wide.

Instead whats more likely is that no one is gonna buy that shit

▲

charcircuit 7 hours ago | parent [-]

>the ai copy pasted the existing project.

The change log says the implementation is completely different, not a copy paste. Is that wrong?

>Internal architecture is completely different (probers replaced by pipeline stages). Only the public API is preserved.

▲

fzeroracer 7 hours ago | parent [-]

It's up to them to prove that a) the original implementation was not part of whatever data set said AI used and b) that the engineers in question did not use the original as a basis.

▲

charcircuit 7 hours ago | parent [-]

It's up to the accuser to prove that they copied it and did not actually write it from scratch as they claimed.

▲

fzeroracer 7 hours ago | parent [-]

No, that's not how copyright laws work. Especially in a world where the starting point is the accused making something and marketing it as someone else's IP with a license change.

	▲	Ukv 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's still on the claimant to establish copying, which usually involves showing that the two works are substantially similar in protected elements. That the defendants had access to the original helps establish copying, but isn't on its own sufficient. Only after that would the burden be on the defendants, such as to give a defense that their usage is sufficiently transformative to qualify as fair use.