Comment by phendrenad2
1 month ago
> Contributors to F/OSS projects, and developers who run them, will falsely claim authorship of the code written by LLMs
It's only "falsely" if the courts rule that LLM-written code is not copyrightable, and so far there's no indication of that happening, although I do see a lot of people secretly wishing for that to be true.
It is conceivable, albeit unlikely, that courts will eventually find that original authors retain ownership or rights, that is, the ingestion of the corpus by models has not diluted copyright status. Or that the company who publishes the model enjoys some ownership or rights over their output. Or that the artificial nature of every work must be acknowledged or documented in some way.
So to clarify: publishers are already claiming exclusive authorship and exclusive ownership of copyright. The exclusive authorship claims are especially problematic, even today, when major platforms are requiring tags or acknowledgement that there is genAI content in any given work.
If you went on Etsy, or Fiverr, and commissioned artwork, would you be OK with a seller claiming 100% ownership and copyright on a work? What if they assigned, or attempted to assign, that copyright ownership to the buyer?
I'm sorry, you're going to have to dumb it down for me. Are you saying it's "conceivable but unlikely" that courts will find that LLM generated code is owned, collectively, by the millions of people who's code was used in training data? Or is it's "conceivable but unlikely" that LLM generated code will be owned by the person who's prompts elicited the output?