[andrewl-hn]

AI code is uncopyrightable. If you want to be hygienic about it you would let AI commit code as is, and if you don't like the code and decide to change it manually this should be a separate human-only commit. Mixed human-AI commits add ambiguity about copyrightability of that code. So its should be either:

    Author: Some AI model, Committer: You Friendly Dev

or

    Author and Committer: Your Friendly Dev

"Co-authored by AI model" is a nonsense that AI labs are pushing everywhere because they definitely want the copyright rules to change, so that while their armies of employees feed LLM prompts every day for the past 4 years they can still claim that the IP is theirs an theirs only. "See all Co-Authored commits, your honor? There's no way to split them apart, so they should all be ours!"

The laws will likely change in the US thanks to lobby, and maybe even change in Europe, too, where they may compromise about it to "not be left behind" and will present them under "Digital Sovereignty" umbrella.

Overall, this "Co-Authored" bit is yet another Trojan horse.

[space_fountain]

I see this really confidently stated, but when I looked into it the exact line is very blurry. It is still possible that writing a prompt is enough creative input for copyright to be granted. What has been decided is you can't have your artwork copyrighted by the AI that produced it, but that isn't quite the same as AI writing not being copyrighted

https://sites.usc.edu/iptls/2025/02/04/ai-copyright-and-the-...

[zuzululu]

Code is absolutely is copyrightable even AI generated ones. It's just like paying a freelancer or one of those old code gen point-click tools which gives you license ownership of the output.