Good point. That fake commit addendum means that the entire commit contents would not be under copyright protection. AI generated code is not currently copyrightable.

▲

bdangubic 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not that simple… this is great read: https://legallayer.substack.com/p/who-owns-the-claude-code-w...

	▲	bjt 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Still if you're the lawyer on the side of the lawsuit claiming that the code is copyrightable, you really don't want that copilot attribution in the commit message muddying the waters.

▲

whattheheckheck 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is thos actually decided yet? Closest thing was the image generation cases. What's your go to source for this?

▲

hirvi74 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Outside this instance, how can one prove code was AI generated beyond a reasonable doubt? Also, do you (or anyone else) know how much AI/copied-code has to be modified for it to be considered independent?

If AI generates code, and one just renames some variables/method signatures, then what?

	▲	tyre 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> how can one prove code was AI generated beyond a reasonable doubt? Subpoena the provider they use. Even if they don’t retain the full context, they have to save API calls for billing and analytics. If you’re clauding for the hour up to and after the commit, one can reasonably assume you built it with (if not exclusively by) AI.

▲

jiveturkey 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It doesn't mean that. A Co-Authored-By header isn't a legal signature or legal assertion of AI generated code.

	▲	VanTheBrand 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It’s certainly an assertion.