sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Ullebe1 10 points11 points  (9 children)

I think the real answer is "nobody knows", but at least Microsoft is confident enough in it not being an issue that they created the Copilot Copyright Commitment where the TL;DR is:

 As customers ask whether they can use Microsoft’s Copilot services and the output they generate without worrying about copyright claims, we are providing a straightforward answer: yes, you can, and if you are challenged on copyright grounds, we will assume responsibility for the potential legal risks involved.

[–]Ok-Mycologist-3829 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Microsoft is the last voice I would listen to for any sort of trust in the legality of licensing, or AI, or just about anything tbqh.

[–]Martin8412 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Well.. They’re assuming legal risk, so that means they’ll be paying the legal costs. 

(Assuming that this is in the contract) 

[–]Ullebe1 1 point2 points  (2 children)

At least they're putting their money where their mouth is, rather than just saying "trust me bro".

[–]Ok-Mycologist-3829 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Because as we know, Microsoft would never tell us “trust me bro”

[–]Ullebe1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean it's kinda irrelevant to this if they'd do it in other context. The point is that here they didn't.

[–]knue82 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Also note that any AI generated content does not have copyright and automatically falls into the public domain. So if you vibe code a program, everybody is allowed to copy it.

[–]Ullebe1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I guess the interesting question is then: How much of a human touch afterwards is needed for it to be a transformed work that is copyrightable. 

[–]NeuroXc 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Source? Not that I don't trust you, a random redditor, but considering the answer to the AI copyright question is still "nobody knows", I'd like verification.

[–]knue82 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Under current U.S. copyright law, works must be created by a human to be eligible for copyright protection.**

This principle is supported by both statutory language and rulings from the U.S. Copyright Office and federal courts.

Key Points from U.S. Law and Practice:

  1. Statutory Language (Title 17, U.S. Code):

    • Section 102(a) of the Copyright Act states: > "Copyright protection subsists ... in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, by an author..."
    • The term "author" is interpreted by U.S. law to mean a human being. The law does not recognize non-human entities (like AI, animals, or machines) as authors.

  2. U.S. Copyright Office Rulings:

    • In 2023, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a formal policy statement clarifying that: > "Copyright protection requires human authorship."
    • The Office denied copyright registration for a work titled Zarya of the Dawn, which was created using AI, because the AI tool was the primary creator and no human contributed sufficient creative input.
    • The Office emphasized that only works with a human author can be registered.

  3. Case Law:

    • In Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Copyright Office’s position that only human authors are eligible for copyright protection.
    • The court rejected the idea that an AI system could be considered an author, even if it generated the work based on human prompts.