It’s been established that LLM-generated code is not copyrighted so I can fully understand the company living from copyrighted data to not accept LLM-generated contributions.

▲

inejge an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> It’s been established that LLM-generated code is not copyrighted

If that's a reference to Thaler v. Perlmutter, the only thing that's been established is that an LLM can't be considered an author under the Copyright Act, only a human being can. It says nothing about the consequences of a human claiming authorship of LLM-generated code, which would be relevant here.

	▲	throw1234567891 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You lay out my words in different order and claim I’m not correct.

▲

semiquaver 44 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is a false narrative based on a (IMO often intentional) misunderstanding. It has by no means been established by any court that LLM-generated code is not copyrightable.

Thaler v. Perlmutter stands for a much narrower proposition and at any rate is not binding nationally, SCOTUS having denied certiorari.

▲

ethin 19 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

This is not necessarily true. While no court has explicitly come out and said that copyright does not apply to AI-generated works of authorship, the US copyright office has[0]:

> Based on an analysis of copyright law and policy, informed by the many thoughtful comments in response to our NOI, the Office makes the following conclusions and recommendations: > • Questions of copyrightability and AI can be resolved pursuant to existing law, without the need for legislative change. > • The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output. > • Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author, even if the work also includes AI-generated material. > • Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements. > • Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. > • Based on the functioning of current generally available technology, prompts do not alone provide sufficient control. > • Human authors are entitled to copyright in their works of authorship that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs, as well as the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs, or creative modifications of the outputs. > • The case has not been made for additional copyright or sui generis protection for AI-generated content. > The Office will continue to monitor technological and legal developments to determine whether any of these conclusions should be revisited. It will also provide ongoing assistance to the public, including through additional registration guidance and an update to the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices.

Congress or the courts could, of course, override the stance of the copyright office, but I think it would be highly unusual for them to do so (particularly for something like this). It would however be a lot better if congress just stepped in and said no outright, but until then this will have to do.

[0]: https://www.copyright.gov/ai

	▲	henryfjordan 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The courts are 100% going to have to interpret what is "sufficient human control" at some point.

▲

throw1234567891 13 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

You are a false narrative. I’m just repeating what I read. The thing is, it’s murky waters. Someone’s going to challenge it but do you want to be the guy who takes it on a chin?

The sibling comment lays this out and my original comment above is based on exactly the same link.

▲

lxgr an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I highly doubt that that's the last word on that matter, but even if: Even before LLMs you could combine individual non-copyrighted components into something copyrighted.