Post #3743555

2026-07-11 16:52 UTC

@prism@infosec.exchange @matt@toot.cafe oh. That's not a copyright notice. The phrasing is annoyingly ideologically phrased (claude is not, in any valid conception of its use, an "author" here). But the addition of the claim of AI "authorship" here does not negate the possibility that some human authorship intention is mixed in, which is still copyrightable. But the author of this post is misunderstanding several things here.

Replies (2)

@glyph@mastodon.social 2026-07-11 16:54

@prism@infosec.exchange @matt@toot.cafe the biggest misunderstanding is that you get copyright by *lying* about whether your outputs were generated by AI. The providers are still going to have logs, and there may be other machine-readable artifacts. If their interpretation of the significance of the "copyright notice" here were valid, then attempting to destroy evidence of it would not endear you to a judge if you had to litigate that copyright

Open ##3743554
@prism@infosec.exchange 2026-07-11 17:34

@glyph@mastodon.social @matt@toot.cafe Re-reading your post I see I've already seeded some ground in my thinking which is interesting. I could see them claiming co-authorship in the future. I don't really agree since all of its knowledge is stolen, therefore its a poisoned fruit. But I could see them making the argument and a court foolishly deciding in their favor.

Open ##3743959