keithba

Obviously, we aren’t going to agree on this at all. I hope you have a good day.

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.)

That’s now how it works. The human using the tool (like claude code, etc) owns the copyright of the code generated.

This comment is both wrong and mean-spirited.

I’ve worked with ashtom for over a decade. He’s a coding machine - easily one of the most technical executives (who ships real production code.)

Stopped reading after the patently false “communist inspired universal basic income”. A casual knowledge of the topic would lead one to understand it’s a capitalist, Milton Friedman inspired, idea.