← Back to context Comment by freejazz 5 months ago > human review or testingReview and testing do not confer a copyright the work reviewed or tested 3 comments freejazz Reply circuit10 5 months ago I guess I was thinking more when it involves rewriting large parts of it because they don't work freejazz 5 months ago That would be authorship, no? circuit10 5 months ago It sounds like they might be under the impression that having any AI-generated output in the code even if parts are human authored would invalidate the copyright, which isn’t true
circuit10 5 months ago I guess I was thinking more when it involves rewriting large parts of it because they don't work freejazz 5 months ago That would be authorship, no? circuit10 5 months ago It sounds like they might be under the impression that having any AI-generated output in the code even if parts are human authored would invalidate the copyright, which isn’t true
freejazz 5 months ago That would be authorship, no? circuit10 5 months ago It sounds like they might be under the impression that having any AI-generated output in the code even if parts are human authored would invalidate the copyright, which isn’t true
circuit10 5 months ago It sounds like they might be under the impression that having any AI-generated output in the code even if parts are human authored would invalidate the copyright, which isn’t true
I guess I was thinking more when it involves rewriting large parts of it because they don't work
That would be authorship, no?
It sounds like they might be under the impression that having any AI-generated output in the code even if parts are human authored would invalidate the copyright, which isn’t true