you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 52 points 8 months ago (5 children)

The law is very clear that non-human generated content cannot hold copyright.

That monkey that took a picture of itself is a famous example.

But yes, the OP is missing some context. If a human was involved, say in editing the code, then that edited code can be subject to copyright. The unedited code likely cannot.

Human written code cannot be stripped of copyright protection regardless of how much AI garbage you shove in.

Still, all of this is meaningless until a few court cases happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    So wait, if my start up does a human written "Hello World" and the rest is piled on AI slop it can't be stripped of copyright? Or is "Hello World" too generic to hold a copyright at all?

    Granted, as you said this all has to be defined and tested in court, I'm just trying to understand where the line as you see it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments