Our Select Committee continues to think & consider deeply about users' rights in the advent of AI Programming Assistance Software, such as machine learning models trained on large codebases. More in the recent committee minutes:

· · Web · 1 · 1 · 3


Does "Copilot" claim ownership of its contributed code to Github/Microsoft? Or is it regarded as "public domain"/"non-copyleft+free"?

ISTM that the process of AI generation might be regarded as diluting, in the same way that a person who "learns programming" does not have their output bound by the license of the code examples they learned from.

Yet unlike the student programmer, the AI is not a legal person to whom a new copyright would adhere.


"Perhaps that which cannot be easily attributed to a single source should be regarded as public property" is a sound principle for such things.

There is a similar debate around AI generated art (MidJourney, Craiyon...) currently, which I think raises the same issues of authorship and license.


It's also similar to the "ape selfie" case in which a non-human (ape) took his own picture with the photographer's camera. The court apparently agreed with the photographer's claim of ownership for providing the camera, though this would NOT be true, had the ape instead been another human. AIs, like apes, are not permitted to own things themselves, in our legal framework, creating a similar problem.

But did the court conclude correctly (legally and/or morally) in that case?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!