←back to thread

Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

(github.com)
494 points todsacerdoti | 6 comments | 25 Jun 25 23:26 UTC | HN request time: 0.839s | source | bottom
Show context
benlivengood ◴[26 Jun 25 00:21 UTC] No.44383064[source]▶
Open source and libre/free software are particularly vulnerable to a future where AI-generated code is ruled to be either infringing or public domain.

In the former case, disentangling AI-edits from human edits could tie a project up in legal proceedings for years and projects don't have any funding to fight a copyright suit. Specifically, code that is AI-generated and subsequently modified or incorporated in the rest of the code would raise the question of whether subsequent human edits were non-fair-use derivative works.

In the latter case the license restrictions no longer apply to portions of the codebase raising similar issues from derived code; a project that is only 98% OSS/FS licensed suddenly has much less leverage in takedowns to companies abusing the license terms; having to prove that infringers are definitely using the human-generated and licensed code.

Proprietary software is only mildly harmed in either case; it would require speculative copyright owners to disassemble their binaries and try to make the case that AI-generated code infringed without being able to see the codebase itself. And plenty of proprietary software has public domain code in it already.

replies(8): >>44383156 #>>44383218 #>>44383229 #>>44384184 #>>44385081 #>>44385229 #>>44386155 #>>44387156 #
zer00eyz ◴[26 Jun 25 00:51 UTC] No.44383218[source]▶
> or public domain

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ai-art-us-copyright-office...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

Im pretty sure that this ship has sailed.

replies(2): >>44383728 #>>44383771 #
1. raincole ◴[26 Jun 25 02:30 UTC] No.44383728[source]▶
It's sailed, but towards the other way: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg5vjqdm1ypo
replies(3): >>44384064 #>>44384264 #>>44385693 #
2. fc417fc802 ◴[26 Jun 25 03:56 UTC] No.44384064[source]▶
That's a brand new ongoing lawsuit. The ship hasn't sailed in either direction yet. It hasn't even been clearly established if Midjourney has liability let alone where the bounds for such liability might lie.

Remember, anyone can attempt to sue anyone for anything at any time in a functional system. How far the suit makes it is a different matter.

3. zer00eyz ◴[26 Jun 25 04:47 UTC] No.44384264[source]▶
https://www.wired.com/story/ai-art-copyright-matthew-allen/

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/19/ai-art-cannot-be-copyrighted...

Here are cases where the product of AI/ML are not the products of people and not capable of being copyrighted. These are about the OUTPUT being unable to be copyrighted.

4. gwd ◴[26 Jun 25 09:34 UTC] No.44385693[source]▶
On the contrary. IANAL, but this is my understanding of the law (setting aside the "work for hire" thing for simplicity)

1. If you come up with something completely new, you are the sole copyright holder.

2. If you take someone else's copyrighted work and transform it, then both of you have a copyright on the derivative work.

So if you write a brand new comic book that includes Darth Vader, you can't sell that without Disney's permission [1]: they have a copyright on Darth Vader, and so your comic book is partly copyrighted by them. But at the same time, they can't sell it without your permission, because you have a copyright on the comic book too.

In the case of Midjourney outputs, my understanding of the current state of the law is this:

1. Only humans can create copyrights

2. So if Midjourney creates an entirely new image that's not derivative of anyone else's work (as defined by long-established copyright law on derivative works), then nobody owns the copyright, and it's in the public domain

3. If Midjourney creates an image that is derived from someone else's work (as defined by long established copyright law on derivative works), then only Disney has a copyright on that derivative work.

And so, in theory, Disney could distribute Darth Vader images you made with Midjourney, unless you can convince the court that you had enough creative influence over them to warrant a copyright.

[1] Yes of course fair use, trying to make a point here

replies(1): >>44385770 #
5. andreasmetsala ◴[26 Jun 25 09:49 UTC] No.44385770[source]▶
Doesn’t this also mean that if you transform the work created by Midjourney, you now have a copyright on the transformed work?

I wonder what counts for transformed, is a filter enough or does it have to be more than that?

replies(1): >>44386178 #
6. gwd ◴[26 Jun 25 11:07 UTC] No.44386178{3}[source]▶
That's my understanding, yes. "What counts as transformed" is fuzzy, but it's an old well-established problem with hundreds of years of case law.