If that were true, a developer may own copyright over the source code, but nothing on the compiled binaries, and I could download practically all software available as compiled binaries and use for free.
Indeed a developer owns copyright over the source code and on the compiled binaries, because there is no expansion happening here but just a translation from one format into another, the kind of thing that has been ruled copyrightable since copyright exists. The same goes for translations from one human language into another, and anybody with knowledge of more than one language will be happy to acknowledge that translating is hard work. Even so, the translator does not hold copyright on the result, at best they can say they have created a derived work and it is the original author that continues to hold copyright.
Compilation and translation happen in a generic manner and does not rely on a mountain of other IP, it is really just a transformative tool that happens to do something useful, someone constructed it to be a very precise translation to the point that any mistakes in it are called bugs and we fix them to ensure the process stays deterministic. Translators try hard to 'get it right' too: to affect the intentions of the original author as little as possible.
When you use a model loaded up with noise or that you have trained exclusively on code that you actually wrote I think a strong case could be made that you own the copyright on that work product. But when you train that model on other people's work, especially without their consent or use a model that has been trained in that way you lose your right to call the output of that model yours.
You did not write it, and the transformative process requires terabytes of other people's IP and only a little bit by you.
As soon as you can prove that your contribution substantially outweighs the amount of IP contributed in total you would have a much stronger case.
>> No, that human owns the copyright on the prompt, not on the work product.
I think I may have misunderstood your original comment above. It seems intending to say:
No, that human owns the copyright on the prompt, not necessarily on the work product. The human may partially have copyright over the work product as well, "how much" being dependent on how much new creative expression from the human was involved vs that from others.
>> Indeed a developer owns copyright over the source code and on the compiled binaries, because there is no expansion happening here but just a translation from one format into another ... does not rely on a mountain of other IP
... and, the license agreement of the compiler and libraries used / linked to practically always explicitly waive copyrights over the said non-mountain of IP.
>> As soon as you can prove that your contribution substantially outweighs the amount of IP contributed in total you would have a much stronger case.
... a much stronger case that you have a partial copyright over the work, which is now likely a derivative work. You still may not have a case that you own the copyright exclusively (or as the original article says, that your employer does).
> If that were true, a developer may own copyright over the source code, but nothing on the compiled binaries, and I could download practically all software available as compiled binaries and use for free.
If the compiled binaries (output) were produced by running the input (source code) over every program written, then sure.
But that's not what's happening with compilers, is it? The output of a prompt is dependent on copyrighted work of others every single time it is run.
The output of a compiler is not dependent on the copyright output of every other program.
1. The "every"ies in your comment are not to be taken literally either. :-)
>> If the compiled binaries (output) were produced by running the input (source code) over every program written, then sure.
2. More importantly, the above seems cyclically dependent on whether output from generative AI is deemed to be in public domain or not, which I consider is an open-ended issue as of now. It is not so 'sure' as yet. :-)
If you have a more recent citation referring to case law that states the opposite then that would be great but afaik this article reflects the current state of affairs.
The human using the tool creates a prompt, there is then an automatic transformation of the prompt into code. Such automatic transformation is generally accepted as not to create a new work (after all, anybody else inputting the same prompt would have a reasonable expectation of generating the same output modulo some noise due to versioning and possibly other local context).
Claud code and in general AI generated code does not at present create a new work. But the prompt, that part which you input may be sufficiently creative to warrant copyright protection.
In the US, the copyright office (as the article you link to says), has declined to define “meaningful” contribution. If you want to argue that the user doesn’t own it for incredibly trivial prompts, I won’t argue (though I consider that to be non-useful code).
Every developer I’ve seen use these tools has have engaged in a meaningful contribution: specific directions across multiple prompts, often (though not always) editing the code afterwards, manually running the code and promoting for changes, etc.
Until the courts, legislators, or the copyright office define something otherwise, I’m highly confident of my assertion. (Mostly because of the insane number of hours I’ve spent with counsel on this. And, as a disclaimer, since I am biased: I worked on Copilot and Google’s various AI assisted coding products as an SVP and VP.)
He's making a point about responsibility/liability.
If you only get copyright for the prompt you make, but not the output, then it's like being responsible only for the prompt, but not the output.
Ie he's only responsible for pushing the boulder up the hill. The fact that it rolled down from the hill and crushed someone's house "isn't his fault" (he doesn't get copyright on it).
If that were true, a developer may own copyright over the source code, but nothing on the compiled binaries, and I could download practically all software available as compiled binaries and use for free.
Indeed a developer owns copyright over the source code and on the compiled binaries, because there is no expansion happening here but just a translation from one format into another, the kind of thing that has been ruled copyrightable since copyright exists. The same goes for translations from one human language into another, and anybody with knowledge of more than one language will be happy to acknowledge that translating is hard work. Even so, the translator does not hold copyright on the result, at best they can say they have created a derived work and it is the original author that continues to hold copyright.
Compilation and translation happen in a generic manner and does not rely on a mountain of other IP, it is really just a transformative tool that happens to do something useful, someone constructed it to be a very precise translation to the point that any mistakes in it are called bugs and we fix them to ensure the process stays deterministic. Translators try hard to 'get it right' too: to affect the intentions of the original author as little as possible.
When you use a model loaded up with noise or that you have trained exclusively on code that you actually wrote I think a strong case could be made that you own the copyright on that work product. But when you train that model on other people's work, especially without their consent or use a model that has been trained in that way you lose your right to call the output of that model yours.
You did not write it, and the transformative process requires terabytes of other people's IP and only a little bit by you.
As soon as you can prove that your contribution substantially outweighs the amount of IP contributed in total you would have a much stronger case.
>> No, that human owns the copyright on the prompt, not on the work product.
I think I may have misunderstood your original comment above. It seems intending to say:
No, that human owns the copyright on the prompt, not necessarily on the work product. The human may partially have copyright over the work product as well, "how much" being dependent on how much new creative expression from the human was involved vs that from others.
3 replies →
+1
Adding two subtle points:
>> Indeed a developer owns copyright over the source code and on the compiled binaries, because there is no expansion happening here but just a translation from one format into another ... does not rely on a mountain of other IP
... and, the license agreement of the compiler and libraries used / linked to practically always explicitly waive copyrights over the said non-mountain of IP.
>> As soon as you can prove that your contribution substantially outweighs the amount of IP contributed in total you would have a much stronger case.
... a much stronger case that you have a partial copyright over the work, which is now likely a derivative work. You still may not have a case that you own the copyright exclusively (or as the original article says, that your employer does).
> If that were true, a developer may own copyright over the source code, but nothing on the compiled binaries, and I could download practically all software available as compiled binaries and use for free.
If the compiled binaries (output) were produced by running the input (source code) over every program written, then sure.
But that's not what's happening with compilers, is it? The output of a prompt is dependent on copyrighted work of others every single time it is run.
The output of a compiler is not dependent on the copyright output of every other program.
I think your comments are originating in how I may have taken jacquesm's comment too literally, as I just wrote here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47944938
However:
1. The "every"ies in your comment are not to be taken literally either. :-)
>> If the compiled binaries (output) were produced by running the input (source code) over every program written, then sure.
2. More importantly, the above seems cyclically dependent on whether output from generative AI is deemed to be in public domain or not, which I consider is an open-ended issue as of now. It is not so 'sure' as yet. :-)
That’s now how it works. The human using the tool (like claude code, etc) owns the copyright of the code generated.
No, you are wrong about this.
See:
https://technophilosoph.com/en/2025/02/07/ai-prompts-and-out...
If you have a more recent citation referring to case law that states the opposite then that would be great but afaik this article reflects the current state of affairs.
The human using the tool creates a prompt, there is then an automatic transformation of the prompt into code. Such automatic transformation is generally accepted as not to create a new work (after all, anybody else inputting the same prompt would have a reasonable expectation of generating the same output modulo some noise due to versioning and possibly other local context).
Claud code and in general AI generated code does not at present create a new work. But the prompt, that part which you input may be sufficiently creative to warrant copyright protection.
In the US, the copyright office (as the article you link to says), has declined to define “meaningful” contribution. If you want to argue that the user doesn’t own it for incredibly trivial prompts, I won’t argue (though I consider that to be non-useful code).
Every developer I’ve seen use these tools has have engaged in a meaningful contribution: specific directions across multiple prompts, often (though not always) editing the code afterwards, manually running the code and promoting for changes, etc.
Until the courts, legislators, or the copyright office define something otherwise, I’m highly confident of my assertion. (Mostly because of the insane number of hours I’ve spent with counsel on this. And, as a disclaimer, since I am biased: I worked on Copilot and Google’s various AI assisted coding products as an SVP and VP.)
6 replies →
So I’m responsible for pushing the giant boulder at the top of the hill.
The humans at the bottom who were crushed should blame the boulder, which happened to be moving.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
He's making a point about responsibility/liability.
If you only get copyright for the prompt you make, but not the output, then it's like being responsible only for the prompt, but not the output.
Ie he's only responsible for pushing the boulder up the hill. The fact that it rolled down from the hill and crushed someone's house "isn't his fault" (he doesn't get copyright on it).
10 replies →