Post #913226

2026-04-01 17:18 UTC

Sure is funny how &quot;AI&quot; companies will insist that ripping boatloads of copyrighted material without consent to fuel their bullshit generators is &quot;fair use&quot;, but putting up clones of their own source code that only leaked due to their own hilarious incompetence is somehow &quot;copyright infringement&quot; And what copyright is it infringing, exactly? Any of their code that was itself LLM-generated isn&#39;t copyrightable in the US anyway.

Replies (1)

@Tamasg@mindly.social 2026-04-01 18:02

@hdv@front-end.social @kgf@hachyderm.io been thinking on this one, technically even if they used a low-wage worker to modify the code leaked in that source, then yes, it still can be. I can see a world where a lot of AI companies hire low-pay workers and at the same time use it to trumpet "people with low to no code skills can now write real production quality stuff!" meanwhile one or two engineers who actually have the qualifiers are stuck in some stingy office reviewing the dumb mistakes made by (mostly) AI code, ha. Sad but a reality I foreshadow. human direction of machine processes can be copyright: "A year later, the Office issued a registration for a comic book incorporating AI-generated material." and "In most cases, however, humans will be involved in the creation process, and the work will be copyrightable to the extent that their contributions qualify as authorship. It is axiomatic that ideas or facts themselves are not protectible by copyright law and the Supreme Court has made clear that originality is required, not just time and effort. In Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., the Court rejected the theory that “sweat of the brow” alone could be sufficient for copyright protection. “To be sure,” the Court further explained, “the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice."

Open ##2324486