[tick_tock_tick]

People are way to attached to single function examples. I'm struggling to find any example that actually rise up to the requested "originality, creativity, and fixation" for copyright to apply.

Just because something looks similar or is even identical doesn't mean copyright applies.

[shakna]

You might want to take a look at some of the pieces of code examined in Google vs Oracle before you decide small and obvious cannot bear copyright in the way that you think it does.

That horrifying back and forth showed that lawyers can consider very small and obvious fragments of code to be absolutely copyrightable. And that it went on for nearly a decade, should tell you that none of this is simple.

[int_19h]

Google v. Oracle did not decide whether such code is copyrightable. The decision says that it doesn't matter because it would be fair use if it were copyrightable.

[reidjs]

Can you give an example? Are they trademarking `for` loops or something?

[jpollock]

https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=791114&p=5747565

"Google also copied the nine-line rangeCheck function in its implementing code"

Comparison between the two, discussed back in 2012:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3940683

[Jaygles]

Whether or not a court would ultimately decide an instance of CoPilot code is copyright infringement or not isn't the main issue in my opinion. The creating opportunities for other people to sue you will be much more damaging. Lawsuits that you win will also be very expensive and its not guaranteed you'll get lawyers fees paid for by the losing party.

[naikrovek]

courts have repeatedly upheld that only humans can own copyright. nothing an AI generates is considered a "work" in copyright law, so they can't be violating works or derivative works. the onus falls on the copilot operator (one might say "the pilot") for purposes of copyright.