IIUC, a person can only claim copyright if they have significantly transformed the output. Unaltered LLM output is not copyrightable per US court decisions.

The whole thing is a legal mess. How do you know the LLM did not reproduce existing code? There is an ongoing legal battle in German between GEMA and OpenAI because ChatGPT reproduced parts of existing song lyrics. A court in Munich has found that this violates German copyright law.

▲

altmanaltman 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I think you're misunderstanding copyright and ownership.

A copyright over code means that ONLY you can use that code, and nobody else; otherwise, you can sue them. For example, if you are an arist, you want to protect your IP this way.

Yes, AI generated code is not copyrightable but so is most code in general. It is very hard to truly get a copyright for a piece of code. But just because you don't have copyright to something doesn't mean it's not your property.

For example, you can buy several movies on DVD and those DVDs will still be your property even though you don't have copyright and if someone does steal those DVDs, it will be considered theft of your property. Similarly, just because the code is AI-generated/not copyrightable, doesn't mean others can just steal it.

Think about it - so many codebases are not legally protected as copyrighted material but are absolutely protected by IP laws and enforced by the companies that own them.

	▲	mananaysiempre 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		(Not a lawyer.) Huh? Normal property law is plainly not applicable to a non-rival good like information (unlike for instance a physical DVD: if someone steals a DVD from me, I don’t have it anymore). “Intellectual property” is, but it is not so much a legal regime as confusing shorthand for a number of distinct ones: - Trademark law, which applies to markings on copies rather than copies themselves; - Trade secret law, which stops applying when the information escapes into the wild through the secret-holder’s own actions; - Patent law, which definitionally only applies to public knowledge as an incentive to not keep it secret instead; - Publicity rights, which only apply to depictions or discussions of natural persons; - Moral rights, which are mostly about being recognized as the author and even in their strongest incarnations do not restrict unmodified copies; - Database right, which isn’t applicable as we’re not talking about a compendium of things, and anyway does not exist in the US and most other places outside the EU; - Copyright, which you’ve conceded is not applicable here. There’s no “intellectual property” distinct from these things, and none of these things are relevant.