Comment by polski-g

18 hours ago

Good point. That fake commit addendum means that the entire commit contents would not be under copyright protection. AI generated code is not currently copyrightable.

Not that simple… this is great read: https://legallayer.substack.com/p/who-owns-the-claude-code-w...

  • Still if you're the lawyer on the side of the lawsuit claiming that the code is copyrightable, you really don't want that copilot attribution in the commit message muddying the waters.

    • you actually do, as counter-intuitive as that seems. co-authored implies (and gives you room to argue) that you were involved in the process. hiding the fact that you did if proven otherwise (not that hard to prove in many cases if it comes to that) won’t be looking good. at my work, we are mandated to include AI attribution and I would say every well-run company should have same mandate

Outside this instance, how can one prove code was AI generated beyond a reasonable doubt? Also, do you (or anyone else) know how much AI/copied-code has to be modified for it to be considered independent?

If AI generates code, and one just renames some variables/method signatures, then what?

  • > how can one prove code was AI generated beyond a reasonable doubt?

    Subpoena the provider they use.

    Even if they don’t retain the full context, they have to save API calls for billing and analytics. If you’re clauding for the hour up to and after the commit, one can reasonably assume you built it with (if not exclusively by) AI.

    • > If you’re clauding for the hour up to and after the commit, one can reasonably assume you built it with (if not exclusively by) AI.

      That's not beyond a reasonable doubt.