Are people just not going to open source anything anymore since licenses don't matter? Might as well just keep the code secret, right?
I'm also not sure that the current precedent on the matter is _quite_ as strong as you're thinking. The high-profile case you're most likely thinking of was from a guy Stephen Thaler, who was seeking not just to claim copyright on AI-generated content but to specify the AI as the sole author. (IIUC, he planned to still own the copyright on the theory that it was a work-for-hire.)
> Our use of content. We may use Content to provide, maintain, develop, and improve our Services, comply with applicable law, enforce our terms and policies, and keep our Services safe. If you're using ChatGPT through Apple's integrations, see this Help Center article (opens in a new window) for how we handle your Content.
> Opt out. If you do not want us to use your Content to train our models, you can opt out by following the instructions in this article . Please note that in some cases this may limit the ability of our Services to better address your specific use case.
https://openai.com/policies/row-terms-of-use/ https://openai.com/policies/how-your-data-is-used-to-improve...
Codex is open source, you can inspect it yourself, but let's not let facts ruin your David vs Goliath fantasy.
Analytics can be run on it, they can run it through their own models, synthetic training data can be derived from it, it can be used to build profiles on you/your business, they could harvest trade/literal secrets from it, they could store derivatives of your data to one day sell to competitors/compete themselves, they can use it to gauge just how dependent you've made yourself/business on their LLMs and price accordingly, etc.
Either way, I don't believe it.
> The court held that the Copyright Act requires all eligible works to be authored by a human being. Since Dr. Thaler listed the Creativity Machine, a non-human entity, as the sole author, the application was correctly denied. The court did not address the argument that the Constitution requires human authorship, nor did it consider Dr. Thaler’s claim that he is the author by virtue of creating and using the Creativity Machine, as this argument was waived before the agency.
Or in other words: They ruled you can't register copyright with an AI listed as the author on the application. They made no comment on whether a human can be listed as the author if an AI did the work.
In this case, the court is saying AI attribution is not okay, either. There is no way to register copyrights for AI creations.
It's consistent with the Copyright Office's interpretation of copyright law where it holds that it only applies to human creations and doesn't apply to non-human creations, which is what they say AI creations fall under:
> The Copyright Office affirms that existing principles of copyright law are flexible enough to apply to this new technology, as they have applied to technological innovations in the past. It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. This can include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output, or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of the output, but not the mere provision of prompts.
[1] https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/...
[2] https://newsroom.loc.gov/news/copyright-office-releases-part...