[alienll]

This is the same shape as the image cases.

Zarya of the Dawn already settled it for Midjourney output: human-written elements were protected, AI-generated images were not. The character design didn't get copyright even though the human picked, prompted, and curated. Code isn't different. Prompting Claude to produce a function is closer to prompting Midjourney to produce a frame than to writing the function yourself.

The reason it feels different to engineers is that we're used to thinking of the compiler as the analogy. But a compiler is deterministic — same input, same output. An LLM isn't. That's the line the Copyright Office is drawing, and image cases got there first.

[protocolture]

Depends on the scale of LLM involvement, the copyright office left a pretty big carve out for things that are human sourced and then modified by LLM, or the reverse, LLM output thats modified by human intention. (They had to do this because there are already pseudo random elements to digital artwork, like say, render clouds and render noise, that might otherwise poison an artwork). In fact I dont think this has been tested with Highlight area > Prompt a change to this area of the image workflows.

They also mention in the same document that were LLMs to more closely approximate deterministic tools, they would be open to reevaluating. That is Requesting X gets X without substantial wiggle room.

I dont think that last part has been tested with an extremely large set of prompts and human generated input to create a more deterministic output. Even outside of code, where you see large prompts, creative writing LLM tools, NovelAI or Sudowrite for instance can have pages and pages of spec for the LLM, sometimes close to 50% of the size of the final output.

Then there's testing, review etc, human processes confirming that the output meets spec, updating it where needed intelligently.

There are also foreign courts, with similar rules about human intention, that have found in favor of prompts only, where it could be demonstrated that multiple rounds of prompts were used to refine the image.

I wouldnt call this settled at all tbh. And to be honest, a lot of this doesnt require exposure. you dont need to own up to LLM use in a lot of settings, proving LLM use is so difficult its easy to jump up the ladder from LLM (100%) to LLM (50%) and ultimately claim ownership.

The people who will get busted for this are basically just super lazy leaving ChatGPT responses in, failing to pay an editor, failing to modify images for anything more than layouts.

[FrostKiwi]

> But a compiler is deterministic — same input, same output. An LLM isn't.

Temperature 0 determinism is subject to active research. NVIDIA tried but failed so far, DeepSeek V4 seems to have done it. I hope judges won't be swayed by this an AI generated code will classified as uncopyrightable, just like Images are.

[alienll]

Fair point on temp-0. But I don't think determinism is what the courts will hang it on. A deterministic LLM still makes the expressive choices — naming, structure, control flow — that the human didn't make. The image cases didn't turn on whether you could re-roll the same Midjourney frame. They turned on who made the creative decisions. Same logic should hold for code.

[Onavo]

But is there anything stopping a human from applying for copyright in their own name? Does the fact that somebody can recreate the prompt invalidate their claim?

[SlinkyOnStairs]

What you're asking is, "could someone do fraud" and "would being found out invalidate their copyright". To both of which the answer is generally, yes.

It'd be a form of plagiarism, just with different consequences to the most common form.

[alienll]

Filing isn't the gate, registration is.

Copyright Office requires you to disclose AI involvement and disclaim the AI-generated parts. Zarya of the Dawn is the example — applicant filed for the whole graphic novel, got partial registration on the human-written text, refused on the Midjourney images. The reproducibility of the prompt isn't really the test. The test is whether a human made the expressive choices.

[dang]

Your comments are getting classified by our software as LLM-generated or (more likely) LLM-edited. It's impossible to be certain, of course, but if this is the case—can you please not do this? It's not allowed here - see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#generated and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079.

LLMs are amazing of course and we use them heavily ourselves - but not for modifying text that is to be posted to HN. Doing so leaves imprints on the language that readers are increasingly becoming allergic to, and we want HN to be a place human conversation.

[alienll]

Wow, yes sir! I was using Claude to write faster. But I understand. Thanks for the note.

[dang]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47965543 got classified the same way. Is that accurate?

[Animats]

> Filing isn't the gate, registration is.

Not really. Copyright registration is pretty much automatic. The Copyright Office does not check for duplicates. Patent registration involves actual examination for patentability. Issued patents are presumed valid (less so than they used to be), but issued copyrights are not. You have to litigate.

The US does not have "sweat of the brow" copyrights. It's the "spark" that creates the originality, not the work. Which is why you can't copyright a telephone directory (Feist vs. Rural Telephone) or a copy of an uncopyrighted image (Bridgeman vs. Corel) or a scan of a 3D object (Meshwerks vs. Toyota). Or the contents of a database as a collective work. Note that some EU countries do allow database copyright.

Interestingly, a corporation can be an author for copyright purposes. The movie industry pushed for that. We may in time see AI corporate personhood for IP purposes.

[JAlexoid]

AFIK: Even the slightest modification of the work is transformative and will produce copyrighted material.

It does not have to be substantial transformation.