That sounds like complete bullshit to me. Even if the logic is sound, which I seriously doubt, if you use someone's code and you claim their license isn't valid because some part of the codebase is AI generated, I'm pretty sure you'll have to prove that. Good luck.

[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I work for a large enterprise firm, our corporate lawyer has told be about this exact scenario so I'm inclined to believe it's real.

That being said, for established projects it won't be that hard to prove the non-AI bit because you have a long commit history that predates the tooling.

Even if you were to assume that all commits after a certain date were AI generated, the OP is slightly off in their attestation that any AI code suddenly makes the whole thing public domain, it would only be if a majority of the codebase was AI coded (and provably so).

So yes all the vibe coded shite is a lost cause, but stuff like Windows isn't in any danger.

[–] iglou@programming.dev 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'll stay sceptical until there is court cases supporting this logic as a precedent.

[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think that's actually quite sensible, our lawyer wasn't flagging some clear cut legal certainty, he was flagging risk.

Risk can be mitigated, even if the chance of it panning out is slim.

[–] iglou@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago

A bit besides the point, but it is pretty crazy to me that we're moving towards a world where if you create by yourself, you're outcompeted, but if you use AI like everyone else, you own nothing.

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There was a case in which a monkey took a picture and the owner of the camera wanted to publish the photo. Peta sued and lost because an animal can't hold any copyright as an human author is required for copyright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute

As you also find in the wikipedia article, this case is used to argue that ai generated content is not by an human author and consequently not copyrightable.

[–] iglou@programming.dev 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'd argue that this is a different scenario, as AI is a tool, not a being. At least at this point.

A complex tool, but really just a tool. Without the human input, it can't do shit.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

There's already rulings on this holding that the prompt for all LLM or image generator isn't enough to count the result as the human's expression, thus no copyright (both in USA and other places)

You need both human expression and creative height to get copyright protection

[–] iglou@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago

I'd argue that it is wildly different to vide coding.

[–] draco_aeneus@mander.xyz 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Exactly. If I use online Photoshop or whatever, and I use the red eye removal tool, I have copyright on that picture. Same if I create a picture from scratch. Just because someone like OpenAI hosts a more complex generator doesn't mean a whole new class of rules applies.

Whomever uses a tool, regardless of the complexity, is both responsible and benificiary of the result.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Not quite how copyright law works. Photoshop and similar gives you copyright because it captures your expression.

An LLM is more like work-for-hire but unlike a human artist it doesn't qualify for copyright protection and therefore neither does you

https://infosec.pub/comment/20390963

[–] draco_aeneus@mander.xyz 2 points 1 month ago

Well, not how USA copyright works, but point well taken. It seems I was too naïve in my understanding of copyright.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If there was an actual civil suit you'd probably be able to subpoena people for that information, and the standard is only more likely than not. I have no idea if the general idea is bullshit, though.

IANAL

[–] I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You forgot the heart

I ♥️ ANAL

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Would that be North African Lawyer, or North American Lawyer?

In any case, we're splitting the cheque. /s

[–] I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Are you suggesting that lawyers migrate?

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Depends on if the court will allow a pro hac vice admission, I guess.