756
Anthropic's Claude AI blocks video game cloning and reverse-engineering — sweeping new restrictions also hit legitimate developers and basic troubleshooting tasks. (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
188 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Human-generated code absolutely is, correct. But AI-generated code is still untested. AI-generated art does not have copyright protection currently. My money is that AI-generated code will have copyright protection through some mental and legal gymnastics. Because money.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Oh, AI-generated code may not be, but like you said we don't have a court ruling yet.

    I don't think it can't be, but we'd first have to have models trained without violating the rights of all the authors of the works in the training data. Like if you trained a model only on GPL software, then the model and its output should also be GPL.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    but we’d first have to have models trained without violating the rights of all the authors of the works in the training data. Like if you trained a model only on GPL software, then the model and its output should also be GPL.

    I'm not so convinced on that one. Copying code without permission, yes, that's illegal. Distributing copied code without permission, also illegal. But processing code (copied with permission) into weights, that doesn't feel to me like a violation. If I have a legit copy of something, I should be able to distribute computed statistics about that copy.

    EFF points out some hazards: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/10/rewriting-copyright-law-generative-ai-would-hurt-everyone

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Sure, but it's not just statistics like "30% of lines contain the letter E". It reproduces the material, sometimes verbatim.

    A model is very obviously a derivative work, as it has 0% original content input. Under fair use law, it also very obviously fails all four tests.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Reproduction of the material we agree is against the law.

    A model is very obviously a derivative work, as it has 0% original content input. Under fair use law, it also very obviously fails all four tests. Computing the letter frequency has 0% original content input, as well, but is definitely not a derivative work. Do you disagree?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago*

    Copyright generally requires human expression regardless of what the type of work is, it's not about what you were inspired by

    If you did derive your work from something else and yours is similar enough, then now both you and the original author has separate copyrights on the result which both needs to be licensed to sell the work (prime example is book translations)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent