[limagnolia]

Thats not at all what this ruling said. What the courts found was that an AI cannot hold copyright as the author. That copyright requires a human creative element. Not that anything that was generated by an LLM can't be subject to copyright.

As an example, a photo taken from a digital camera can be subject to copyright because of the creative element involved in composing and taking the photo. Likewise, source code generated by an LLM under the guidance of a human author is likely to be subject to the human authors copyright.

[skeledrew]

> That copyright requires a human creative element.

Sure, but the aim of that creative element would also be a consideration I'd think (and lawyers will argue). If someone sets up a camera on a 360° rotating arm and leaves it to take pictures at random intervals, it's unlikely to be considered "creative" from a copyright perspective.

Same for source code generated by an LLM, with the primary guidance of the human author being to "create a copy of this existing thing that I got", vs "create a thing that solves this problem in a way that I came up with". The former is recreating something that already exists, using detailed knowledge of that thing to shape the output. The latter is creating something that may or may not exist, using desire/need and imagination to shape the output. And I can't see reason for the former to be copyrightable.

But also, in either case, an ultimate objective was achieved: liberating the thing from its "owners" and initial copyright.

[fc417fc802]

> Likewise, source code generated by an LLM under the guidance of a human author is likely to be subject to the human authors copyright.

That's probably going to depend an awful lot on the exact details of the guidance. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

> As described above, in many circumstances these outputs will be copyrightable in whole or in part—where AI is used as a tool, and where a human has been able to determine the expressive elements they contain. Prompts alone, however, at this stage are unlikely to satisfy those requirements. The Office continues to monitor technological and legal developments to evaluate any need for a different approach.

But let's assume that the viktor prompts themselves were subject to copyright. In this case those prompts were used to generate documentation which was then used to generate an implementation. It's certainly not a clean room by any stretch of the imagination but is it likely to be deemed sufficient separation? The entire situation seems like a quagmire.