This is a non issue, since any complex thing needs a lot of human oversight, otherwise it's nothing more than a multitentacled monstrosity.
tommy29tmar 1 day ago||
Maybe the useful test is not “who wrote this line?” but “can you show how it went from requirement/prompt/context to diff to human review/tests?” If you can’t, ownership is only one issue. You also can’t tell what was accepted as engineering work versus just copied output.
senaevren 1 day ago|
This is actually closer to how the Copyright Office thinks about it than the article makes clear. The registration guidance that emerged from the Thaler proceedings specifically asks applicants to describe the human creative contributions and how the AI was used. A documented workflow showing requirement, architectural decision, rejection of AI output, human restructuring, and review creates a paper trail that maps directly onto what the Office looks for. The can you show how it got here test you are describing is the practical version of the legal standard.
mlmonkey 22 hours ago||
On a related note, another question: who owns the paper that Claude (or OpenAI) wrote? Should such paper submissions in conferences call out the model(s) used to write the paper itself?
skadge 1 day ago||
This seems to be grounded in US law. Does anyone know if the same rules would apply in eg EU law?
nairboon 21 hours ago||
Copyright law kind of transcends national borders by certain international treaties like the Berne Convention. Which is why the US copyright holders could enforce their "woulnd't steal a car" threats in Europe.
zvr 1 day ago|||
Most of this is based on Copyright legal framework, which is surprisingly homogeneous around the world. The discussions about ownership of AI-generated material are exactly the same in EU.
senaevren 1 day ago||
[dead]
mifydev 10 hours ago||
Missed opportunity for a tongue twister:
Who coded the code Claude Code code?
smashed 1 day ago||
The "if you generated the code at work using company tools, it's owned by your employer" affirmation in the article makes no sense to me?
If computer generated code is not copyrightable, ownership cannot be reassigned either.
conartist6 1 day ago||
It is copyrightable. A *human* can copyright code they wrote.
smashed 1 day ago||
I meant in the sense that the "tool" is an LLM and the "work" was vibe coded.
If vibe coded work is not copyrightable, it cannot be reassigned to the employer and become copyright protected.
senaevren 1 day ago|||
This is the sharpest point in the thread. You are right if the output has no copyright to begin with, there is nothing to assign. The employer's contractual claim over purely AI-generated code is not a copyright claim, it is a trade secret and confidentiality claim. Those are weaker protections: they require the information to remain secret, they do not survive disclosure, and they cannot be enforced against independent creation of the same code. Most IP assignment clauses in employment contracts were not drafted with this scenario in mind and may be claiming rights that do not legally exist.
conartist6 1 day ago|||
correct
croes 1 day ago||
How is it for human developers now if the company tool is a cloud tool and not running on company servers?
pfortuny 22 hours ago||
You don't but nevertheless you bear the responsibility of making it public (whether in soyrce or binary form). That is what Anthropic would like.
everdrive 20 hours ago||
Well I don't own anything I write while working on my company. Maybe my company and Claude can fight over who owns it.
briandw 21 hours ago||
Your employer can claim your code if you use their tools to produce it. Nothing new here. This has nothing to do with AI tooling.
pelasaco 3 hours ago|
so as i understood GPL dont cover code written by agents?