[oddmade]

I'll cancel my $100 / month Claude account the moment they decide to "approve my code"

Already got close to cancel when they recently updated their TOS to say that for "consumers" they deserve the right to own the output I paid for - if they deem the output not having been used "the correct way" !

This adds substantial risk to any startup.

Obviously...for "commercial" customers that do not apply - at 5x the cost...

[brutal_chaos_]

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/

In the US, at least, the works generated by "AI" are not copyrightable. So for my layman's understanding, they may claim ownership, but it means nothing wrt copyright.

(though patents, trademarks are another story that I am unfamiliar with)

[shikon7]

But along the same argument you may claim ownership, but it means nothing wrt copyright.

So you cannot stop them from using the code AI generated for you, based on copyright claims.

[brutal_chaos_]

Wouldn't that mean everyone owns it then (wrt copyright)? Not just the generator and Anthropic?

[shagie]

It means the person who copyrighted it still has the copyright on it. However, using AI generated code in some project that passes the threshold of being copyrightable can be problematic and "the AI wrote it for me" isn't a defense in a copyright claim.

[tbrownaw]

There's a difference between an AI acting on it's own, vs a person using AI as a tool. And apparently the difference is fuzzy instead of having a clear line somewhere.

I wonder if any appropriate-specialty lawyers have written publicly about those AI agents that can supposedly turn a bug report or enhancement request into a PR...

[aeon_ai]

Can you elaborate on the expansion of rights in the ToS with a reference? That seems egregiously bad

[oddmade]

https://www.anthropic.com/legal/consumer-terms

"Subject to your compliance with our Terms, we assign to you all our right, title, and interest (if any) in Outputs."

..and if you read the terms you find a very long list of what they deem acceptable.

I see now they also added "Non-commercial use only. You agree not to use our Services for any commercial or business purposes" ...

..so paying 100usd a month for a code assistant is now a hobby ?

[foolswisdom]

What is says there is

> Evaluation and Additional Services. In some cases, we may permit you to evaluate our Services for a limited time or with limited functionality. Use of our Services for evaluation purposes are for your personal, non-commercial use only.

In other words, you're not allowed to trial their services while using the outputs for commercial purposes.

[oddmade]

Take a look at "11. Disclaimer of warranties, limitations of liability, and indemnity" there is a section about commercial use.

[foolswisdom]

I really don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing about commercial use in section 11 (nor does the language you quoted above appear anywhere in the Searching "business" and "commercial" makes it easy to verify this).

[oddmade]

Section 11 point 4 "agree not to use our Services for any commercial or business purposes"

I understand they want to limit their liability - so feel free to call me naive...

I'm just old school enough to think that if I buy a tool - I'd have the right to use it and enjoy the results

Imagine buying a bread knife and be told what bread you are allowed to slice ?

Pizza needs an extended license.

No pineapple allowed

[oddmade]

..while their support chatbot claims commercial use is fine. Oh well

[nojito]

>This adds substantial risk to any startup.

If you're a startup are you not a "commercial" customer?

[oddmade]

Well... ..in their TOS they seem to classify the 100usd / month Max plan a "consumer plan"

[eru]

I think this is talking about the different tiers of subscription you can buy.

[oddmade]

..and the legal terms attached - yes

[sitkack]

They are already trolling for our prompting techniques, now they are lifting our results. Great.