Your link doesn’t support what you’re saying in the slightest. Have whatever opinion you want, but don’t shovel up transparent bullshit to push your narrative.
TFA is about a a copyright on a work made by a purely autonomous device, and SCOTUS declining to hear a case doesn’t “settle” jack-shit.
Quoting further:
Thaler submitted an application to the US Copyright Office to register copyright in “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” explicitly identifying the AI system as the author and stating the work was created without human intervention.
For now, businesses and creators using AI should continue to rely on the longstanding human authorship requirement. Under current law, works made solely by autonomous AI are not eligible for copyright protection in the United States. Ongoing cases also consider the amount of human input, including prompting or post-generation editing, required to register copyright in an AI-generated work.[12]
Companies should ensure a human contributes creatively and is named as the author in any copyright applications for AI-assisted works. To maximize protection, organizations should review their creative workflows and document human involvement in AI-assisted projects, particularly for commercial content. Organizations should continue to document the timing and scope of the use of AI in copyrightable works, for example by retaining prompts provided by the author. Internal policies should clarify attribution, ownership, the nature of creative input, and documentation requirements to avoid denied copyright applications.
Iteratively working on a codebase by guiding an LLM’s design choices and feeding it bug reports is fundamentally different from this case you’re citing.
If all you do is prompt the AI, “hey, fix bugs in this repo,” then you had no creative input into what it produces. So that kind of code would not be copyrightable, 100%. You can fight it in court, but the Supreme Court refusing to hear it means the lower court’s decision is settled law, and your chances of winning are essentially zero.
Whether code where you hold its hand and basically pair program with it is copyrightable hasn’t been settled. Considering the dev said he does it both ways, the point is rather moot, since for sure, he doesn’t own the copyright to at least some of that AI generated code.
OpenClaw is an autonomous system just like the one in that article, and the dev said that’s what he’s using at least some of the time. It generates and commits code without human intervention.
Your link doesn’t support what you’re saying in the slightest. Have whatever opinion you want, but don’t shovel up transparent bullshit to push your narrative.
TFA is about a a copyright on a work made by a purely autonomous device, and SCOTUS declining to hear a case doesn’t “settle” jack-shit.
Quoting further:
Iteratively working on a codebase by guiding an LLM’s design choices and feeding it bug reports is fundamentally different from this case you’re citing.
If all you do is prompt the AI, “hey, fix bugs in this repo,” then you had no creative input into what it produces. So that kind of code would not be copyrightable, 100%. You can fight it in court, but the Supreme Court refusing to hear it means the lower court’s decision is settled law, and your chances of winning are essentially zero.
Whether code where you hold its hand and basically pair program with it is copyrightable hasn’t been settled. Considering the dev said he does it both ways, the point is rather moot, since for sure, he doesn’t own the copyright to at least some of that AI generated code.
OpenClaw is an autonomous system just like the one in that article, and the dev said that’s what he’s using at least some of the time. It generates and commits code without human intervention.