Comment by cbarnes99
16 days ago
You clearly didn't actually look at the link and are just responding to the title. There's Supreme Court precedent. It doesn't get any clearer than that.
16 days ago
You clearly didn't actually look at the link and are just responding to the title. There's Supreme Court precedent. It doesn't get any clearer than that.
As the sibling comment said, the existing precedent is for an entirely different scenario. If a human claims no involvement then it's fair to say they have no ownership. But if I meticulously guide an LLM to implement precisely the code I want to be written, that's an entirely different thing which has not been tested in court.
A similar concept: if I type the code via a brain-computer interface, does the interface get ownership because it is inferring my intent? If I type it via an LLM, why is that less legitimately my creation?
It's fine if I vibecode something and never look at or claim ownership of the code, but if I am actively involved in all of the code but it is written to disk by new tools instead of old tools, why is it suddenly not mine?
I don't think you read the cases. The Thaler one is about AI created art not code, and Thaler stated that the agent was "the sole creator of the work". The case got no further than that. Thaler said he had no involvement: open and shut case.