this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2026
1176 points (95.3% liked)

Programmer Humor

30700 readers
1825 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 309 points 1 month ago (40 children)

As much as I wish this was true, I don't really think it is.

[–] lung@lemmy.world 225 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's just unsettled law, and the link is basically an opinion piece. But guess who wins major legal battles like this - yep, the big corps. There's only one way this is going to go for AI generated code

[–] Droechai@piefed.blahaj.zone 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Worst case is that its the owner of the agent that recieves the copyright, so all vibe coded stuff outside local ai will be claimed by the big corpos

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 22 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I actually think that's the best case because it would kill enterprise adoption of AI overnight. All the corps with in-house AI keep using and pushing it, but every small to medium business that isn't running AI locally will throw it out like yesterday's trash. OpenAI's stock price will soar and then plummet.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The big AI companies would just come out with a business subscription that explicitly gives you copyright.

[–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Unlikely since, as you say, it would deter business. OpenAI already assigns rights of output to the end user according to their licensing and terms.

[–] marlowe221@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No attempt to argue with you, personally is intended here. But your comment raises another question that I’m not sure the law has answered yet.

What rights does OpenAI have in the output of ChatGPT in the first place? Because if the answer is “Not much” then their transfer of rights to the output to the user doesn’t necessarily mean much.

After all, OpenAI can only transfer rights that they have. If they don’t have any to begin with… 🤷‍♂️

[–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yep, totally fair question, and one that's being tested legally on many fronts. Rulings are generally siding with AI companies on the training side (using copyrighted works to train models is fair use) but there aren't many decisions yet about output. The next few years will be interesting.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

One would hope it could be first tested against a small time company that can't afford a good lawyer

[–] joker54@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

Sadly, any lawsuit that opposed AI will have an army of lawyers defending the AI company.

Precedent affects all, and big companies know this.

[–] PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 39 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It is true that AI work (and anything derived from it that isn't significantly transformative) is public domain. That said, the copyright of code that is a mix of AI and human is much more legally grey.

In other work, where it can be more separated, individual elements may have different copyright. For example, a comic was made using AI generated images. It was ruled that all the images were thus public domain. Despite that, the text and the layout of the comic was human-made and so the copyright to that was owned by the author. Code, obviously can't be so easily divided up, and it will be much harder to define what is transformative or not. As such, its a legal grey area that will probably depend on a case-by-case basis.

[–] ssfckdt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 1 month ago

Yeah, it's like products that include FOSS in them, only have to release the FOSS stuff, not their proprietary. (Was kind of cute to find the whole GNU license buried in the menus of my old TiVo...)

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 10 points 1 month ago

So, you're telling me I can copypaste 100% some of the ai slop books on amazon and resell it as mine? Brb, gonna make a shit site an absolute diarrhea

[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If the AI generated code is recognisably close to the code the AI has been trained with, the copyright belongs to the creator of that code.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Since AIs are trained on copyleft code, either every output of AI code generators is copyleft, or none of it is legal to use at all.

[–] inari@piefed.zip 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I may be wrong but I think current legal understanding doesn't support this

[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Under U.S. law, to prove that an AI output infringes a copyright, a plaintiff must show the copyrighted work was "actually copied", meaning that the AI generates output which is "substantially similar" to their work, and that the AI had access to their work.[4]

Wikipedia – AI and copyright

I've found a similar formulation in a official German document before posting my above comment. Essentially, it doesn't matter if you've ~~"stolen"~~ copied somebody else's code yourself and used it in your work or did so by using an AI.

[–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago

Even if it were, it would be for you or I, but not for Microsoft, apple, Google, or Amazon.

load more comments (36 replies)