[LucasAegis]

AI is merely a sophisticated tool. If your original thoughts achieve a tangible result through this tool, the ownership should reside with the thinker. Reverse-engineering, in this context, shouldn't be seen merely as an infringement on AI-generated code, but as a violation of the human intellect and systemic design that orchestrated that code. We need to move past protecting 'lines of code' and start protecting the 'intent and architecture' behind them.

[latexr]

> If your original thoughts achieve a tangible result through this tool, the ownership should reside with the thinker.

What if you ask the tool “come up with an idea and build it” and it makes you an (obviously) derivative app? Or what if (closer to this post) you say “copy this thing, but differently so we don’t get into legal trouble”? Is any of those an “original thought” worthy of ownership of the output?

[bayindirh]

What if the tool needs an amalgam of everything on the internet to barely function and some of this everything has a big red label saying that adding said thing to this amalgam is forbidden for a reason or another?

Further, what if this tool can reproduce these forbidden things almost or completely verbatim and the user of the tool has no way to verify it?

[LucasAegis]

You are focusing on the 'bricks' (the literal lines of code), but your argument overlooks the fundamental reality of Architectural Interdependency. In the era of AI-driven synthesis, we must shift our perspective from linguistic expression to systemic logic.

Think of software development as finding a structural path from point A to point D.

1.The Foundational Gateway (A → B): You are correct that AI tools are an amalgam of existing data. This foundational layer (A-B) represents the "Prior Art" or the existing IP that serves as a necessary gateway for any further development. If the path starts here, the rights of the original creators must be respected through the established legal framework of Intellectual Property Offices.

2.The Innovative Branch (F → D): However, if an orchestrator uses a tool to forge a new path via a distinct architecture (F) to reach the destination (D), that specific "delta" is a unique intellectual asset. Even if the tool "borrows" the bricks, the topological map of the new architecture belongs to the thinker who directed it.

3.The Necessity of Cross-Licensing: This is where the true core of IP exists. If the owner of the foundation (A-B) wishes to utilize the superior, optimized results of the new path (ABFD), they must respect the IP of the FD architecture. Conversely, the FD creator must acknowledge the base.

We aren't just talking about 'verbatim reproduction' of code; we are talking about the Systemic Design that justifies the existence of IP offices worldwide. The future isn't about "cleaning" licenses through AI, but about a more sophisticated world of Cross-Licensing where the foundational layer and the innovative layer recognize each other's functional logic.

[KaiserPro]

> the ownership should reside with the thinker.

Assuming that you are a programmer, when you think back to your contract, you will have noticed something like "The employee agrees to that any works created during employment will be solely owned by $company_name"

Copyright _should_ be about allowing workers to make money from the non physical stuff that they produce.

Google spent many many millions undermining that so they could run youtube, the news service and google books (amongst other things.

Disney bought most of congress to do the opposite.

At it's heart copyright is a tool that allows you and me to make a living. However its evolved into a system that allows large corporations to make and hold monopolies.

Now that large corporations can see an opportunity to cut employees out of the system entirely, they are quite happy with AI companies undermining copyright, just so long as they can keep charging for auto generated content.

TLDR: copyright is automatically assigned to the creator of the specific work, not the thinker.

ie thinker: "build me a box with two yellow rabbit ears"

The text is copyright of the "thinker"

maker: builds a box with yellow rabbit ears Unless the yellow rabbit ears are a specific and recognisable of the thinker's work, its not infringement.