No, your claim is "LLM generated code is not copyrighted." His claim is "LLM generated code is eligible for copyright."
If you write a prompt and one-shot a problem and share the source code, that source code is probably not covered by copyright.
If you substantially edit or modify the generated code you would own the copyright.
It's like with a camera. If I set a camera and carefully aim it and somehow trigger the shutter then make adjustments in Photoshop, I own the copyright on that image.
If I stick a Flock camera on a pole somewhere and post the live output, there's been no meaningful human creative involvement in producing those images and so nobody can claim copyright on them.
I don't like this idea that llm code can't be owned by a human, copyrighted. It's just code.
I think your last example with flock camera is relevant here - I can take a picture of a public football as a reporter or something (or a fan I guess) and I can copyright and sell that picture. Newspapers do it every day.
So if I stand on a street corner and take a pic, it's copyrightable. If I take a pic using a flock camera it should also be copyrightable, just like if my nest camera at home takes a pic of something, I can use that.
I guess you are saying "someone else owns the flock camera" so you don't get to own pictures. What if I buy the flock-like camera and put it up, I should own that.
(Not a lawyer, just a Wikipedia editor.)
This is a great case to study, but no determination of copyright was made. The only actual lawsuit was filed by PETA arguing that the monkey should have copyright, which led to a settlement with the human photographer and nothing else because obviously that's not possible.
For various reasons (mostly $$$) the guy never actually got a judgement. I think the chances are good that he could have prevailed in court; there is significant creative input to setting up cameras and triggers in a way to convince a wild monkey to take a selfie. It's not like he just left his camera sitting somewhere on accident and came back to find a photo in it.
I'm also not a lawyer, but I did do a lot of work in copyright for a company you've heard about.
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/02/24/can-you-license-video-yo...
The tldr is you really can't copyright raw surveillance video, but you can apparently lightly edit to turn it into a creative work that is copyrightable.
> The tldr is you really can't copyright raw surveillance video, but you can apparently lightly edit to turn it into a creative work that is copyrightable.
The article doesn't say that, it doesn't speak to CCTV surveillance footage. It discusses rare cases like cameras falling from aircraft, or animals pressing the button to take a photo.
I can see your line of reasoning about there being zero creative input in the video's creation, but if surveillance footage isn't subject to copyright, I'd expect there to be plenty written about it.
From the techdirt piece, seen above:
"To license out copyright, there must be creative contribution. This can arise from cutting/editing the video in a creative manner. Since there is no other prevailing copyright, the editing then makes you sole copyright owner entitled to all proceeds.
You may feel inclined to call bullshit on this, but it’s actually the ongoing revenue model for "revised" editions of Beethoven, Bach and older."
I'm afraid I'm not seeing it. Which comments specifically? Please link directly, rather than describing them.
> From the techdirt piece, seen above: [...]
My question was specifically about surveillance footage. The law doesn't work on perfect logical consistency, we can't infer an ironclad answer where there's no explicit law or legal precedent.
Another web search turned up a reddit discussion [0] which says that in the case of US law it's unclear, but that under UK law it explicitly is subject to copyright, under a special non-creative films category.
This Quora thread (sorry, couldn't find better sources) supports this. [1]
> You may feel inclined to call bullshit on this, but it’s actually the ongoing revenue model for "revised" editions of Beethoven, Bach and older."
Sure, I'm aware of that, but it's not the same question.
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/COPYRIGHT/comments/1j7y8i0/cctv_foo...
[1] https://www.quora.com/Can-one-claim-copyright-on-CCTV-footag...
We will have to see about that! This is the kind of boundary that's still being figured out in court; it's going to depend on how hard you worked on the prompt. I highly doubt that even most slop was generated with a single half-ass prompt, and the bar is not as high as you might expect.
> If I stick a Flock camera on a pole somewhere and post the live output, there's been no meaningful human creative involvement in producing those images and so nobody can claim copyright on them.
It really depends on what pole, where, and why. In a parking lot in rural Wisconsin? Probably not. A recorded livestream of a political march? You likely have copyright.
I think that by virtue of the sheer amount of time spent using AI tools, it's pretty clear that these outputs have enough creative input to be copyrightable.
The LLM will output different results over time as the models get updated. Are we heading towards needing to retain a full prompt history that can be replayed against a specific LLM model version to prove what the output was for copyright purposes?