What happens in a couple years when all this code that’s been written by Copilot and the like, Microsoft then turns around and says, “OH YEAH, BTW THAT WAS GENERATED BY OUR AI SO NOW WE OWN YOUR APP!” Look, most social media ToS says anything uploaded to their sites is owned by them now, royalties-free.
Right now it’s no big deal to any AI company because more code means more training for the AI, but will we get to the point that they’re happy with code output enough and then turn around claiming they own those? Plus, any successful apps are then basically free/no cost contributed projects?
Bonus: Also, what happens when AI is trained on AI-written code that was initially wrong by AI? Is the system doomed to never really improve because of so many inaccuracies?
Right now it’s no big deal to any AI company because more code means more training for the AI, but will we get to the point that they’re happy with code output enough and then turn around claiming they own those?
The vast majority of commenters agreed that existing law is adequate in this area and that material generated wholly by AI is not copyrightable.
So it seems unlikely that they would be able to claim any ownership.
As for the rest of your comment (the parts around ownership): you always own the copyright for any copyrightable work you create, including code. When you post on a website, according to the ToS of that site, you’re licensing your comment/code/whatever to the website (you need to for them to be able to publish your work on their website).
Some (many, most depending on what you use) websites overlicense your work and use it for other purposes as well (like GitHub), but in the US the judges have basically ruled that AI companies can pirate whatever works they want without any attempt to license them and still be fine, so the “overlicense” bit is more of a formality at this point anyway.
What happens in a couple years when all this code that’s been written by Copilot and the like, Microsoft then turns around and says, “OH YEAH, BTW THAT WAS GENERATED BY OUR AI SO NOW WE OWN YOUR APP!” Look, most social media ToS says anything uploaded to their sites is owned by them now, royalties-free.
courts have already ruled that AI can’t own copyright. if it’s not generated by humans, it doesn’t generate copyright.
How does that interplay with the whole “Corporations are people” and if the corporation owns the llm, it could theoretically claim ownership of what the llm generates? (To be clear I agree with the decision that ai shouldn’t get a copywrite and don’t think corporations are people but I am genuinely curious)
dunno. I’m not an IP lawyer. however i’ve read a few case summaries where they’ve tried to say putting inputs into an LLM gives copyright and the courts ruled it didn’t. if it doesn’t work for humans, it doesn’t work for corporations either.
granted, the area of law i work in, there’s lots of difference between legal outcomes if you’re merely set up as a partnership instead of a corporation so who knows.
I hope this is a good question:
What happens in a couple years when all this code that’s been written by Copilot and the like, Microsoft then turns around and says, “OH YEAH, BTW THAT WAS GENERATED BY OUR AI SO NOW WE OWN YOUR APP!” Look, most social media ToS says anything uploaded to their sites is owned by them now, royalties-free.
Right now it’s no big deal to any AI company because more code means more training for the AI, but will we get to the point that they’re happy with code output enough and then turn around claiming they own those? Plus, any successful apps are then basically free/no cost contributed projects?
Bonus: Also, what happens when AI is trained on AI-written code that was initially wrong by AI? Is the system doomed to never really improve because of so many inaccuracies?
At least in the US:
So it seems unlikely that they would be able to claim any ownership.
As for the rest of your comment (the parts around ownership): you always own the copyright for any copyrightable work you create, including code. When you post on a website, according to the ToS of that site, you’re licensing your comment/code/whatever to the website (you need to for them to be able to publish your work on their website).
Some (many, most depending on what you use) websites overlicense your work and use it for other purposes as well (like GitHub), but in the US the judges have basically ruled that AI companies can pirate whatever works they want without any attempt to license them and still be fine, so the “overlicense” bit is more of a formality at this point anyway.
courts have already ruled that AI can’t own copyright. if it’s not generated by humans, it doesn’t generate copyright.
How does that interplay with the whole “Corporations are people” and if the corporation owns the llm, it could theoretically claim ownership of what the llm generates? (To be clear I agree with the decision that ai shouldn’t get a copywrite and don’t think corporations are people but I am genuinely curious)
dunno. I’m not an IP lawyer. however i’ve read a few case summaries where they’ve tried to say putting inputs into an LLM gives copyright and the courts ruled it didn’t. if it doesn’t work for humans, it doesn’t work for corporations either.
granted, the area of law i work in, there’s lots of difference between legal outcomes if you’re merely set up as a partnership instead of a corporation so who knows.