> If it's actually co authored then you should be fine on copyright
How so? All your outoutput is now legally partly owned by Microsoft?
How so? All your outoutput is now legally partly owned by Microsoft?
But then neither do you, for every commit that was marked with copilot.
If a monkey uses a typewriter, there's no copyright.
If I use a typewriter with a monkey, I get copyright and the monkey doesn't.
Why would the monkey need copyright for me to get copyright?
Right, because monkeys cannot be granted copyright. If you use a typewriter along with Microsoft, the resulting copyright will be owned jointly.
This story isn't about a monkey claiming co-authorship, it's about Microsoft claiming co-authorship.
I don't understand your position.
Your previous post was agreeing that Microsoft wouldn't get copyright on copilot output, wasn't it? I said the bot doesn't get copyright and you said "neither do you".
Why are you now saying Microsoft would get copyright?
Copilot is a robo-monkey owned by Microsoft.
If I counter sign agreement, certainly. How do you think that sales of both movable and immovable property work?
Right, and how is a court supposed to differentiate between the cases when copilot was not sharing your typewriter and cases when it was?