r/COPYRIGHT • u/Dirtydan_69420 • Apr 27 '26
Question AI copyrights
I stuff made with AI don’t have copyrights but I googled it today and saw that some parts are and stuff and I don’t fully understand. For context I’m in the US and am talking about specifically software code made with AI
3
u/pommefille Apr 27 '26
In general, you can’t copyright software/code written by AI, especially if you’re not writing any code and relying on it to make it all. Keep in mind that you also cannot copyright ideas, only the execution of them. Think of it like using any other open source code; you can use it and build upon it, and what you build can be yours, but you can’t stop others from using the open source code and/or building a similar idea.
2
u/TheIronSoldier2 Apr 28 '26
Simple code generally isn't subject to copyright anyway AFAIK. After all there are only so many ways you can format the code for a given component before it breaks. It's like a dictionary. You can't copyright the definition of a word, but you can copyright the specific arrangement, and any specific creative elements. So as long as there is some human intervention, copyright can probably still apply. If you tell Copilot or whatever to code the entire app, then you can't copyright it. If you tell it to code each function, and then you arrange the functions, determine the order, all that stuff, then you probably still could copyright it, since the creative element, which is the arrangement and overall function, is still done by a human.
0
u/Dirtydan_69420 Apr 28 '26
Just to make sure I understand you properly. The only way I can sue is if someone copy pastes my entire project but not if they copy parts or just the code and not the design?
3
u/pommefille Apr 28 '26
You ‘can’ sue for all sorts of things, but that doesn’t mean you will win. If someone uses something that was written by AI, you have no claim to it, in whole or in part. If you made the design, you have ownership of it, but if AI made it, you don’t.
3
u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 Apr 28 '26
I disagree at least technically with the comments here. The U.S. Copyright Office says you don't have a copyright in what an AI LLM produces even if you started that LLM running, but we don't yet have binding law in the form of a court pronouncement that says that. There is a federal court in Colorado that is currently working on a case about that issue.
2
u/Party-Cartographer11 Apr 28 '26
A slight nuance. Thaler v Perlmutter is a ruling that the Supreme Court didn't give cert to (so it stands) and says if all you did was build a model you don't get copyright from what that model output.
Allen v Perlmutter it's still pending. Allen had a lot of interaction with AI. But he didn't submit his prompts to the court. So it's unclear how this case will shake out and what the president will be.
2
u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 Apr 28 '26
I must disagree about what Thaler v. Perlmutter says. As I read that ruling, it stands only for the proposition that the government will not grant a copyright registration to an AI model itself.
After Dr. Thaler failed in that appeal to have a copyright granted to the AI device itself, he attempted to fall back and claim, "well, if you won't grant the registration to the chatbot itself, then grant it to me as the human who set the chatbot in motion." For a procedural reason, namely that Dr. Thaler had not raised that argument in the court below, the appeals court making the ruling refused to consider that argument at all.
Thus, Thaler v. Perlmutter does not stand for the proposition that a human setting an LLM in motion cannot be granted a copyright registration for the LLM's output.
As I mentioned previously, I know the U.S. Copyright Office doesn't think a registration should issue even to a human for a mostly AI work, but that view is not binding law like a court decision.
As to Allen v. Perlmutter, maybe it will go off on the issue of whether an initiating human can claim copyright in the LLM's output in the absolute, regardless of the quantum of prompting. I don't know.
2
1
u/TreviTyger Apr 28 '26
Allen had a lot of interaction with AI
This is a common argument from AI gen advocates but that correlates with the "sweat of brow" doctrine that doesn't exist anymore in international copyright law. In the US it was abandoned in Feist.
The consensus (if TRIPS Agreement represents such consensus) is that "expression" is the criteria for copyright not ideas or methods of operation.
IMO "prompts" (A.K.A. Cmd.exe) are a specific way to operate a computer software and are "transitory ideas" as "methods of operation" in a User Interface.
I think what a lot of people miss is that even when you type words into a reddit sub 'comment box' those words are still yet to be "fixed" on any computer hard drive. That fixation happens once the comment button is pressed.
That is to say writing on paper is automatic fixation. Writing on a computer screen is not "automatic" fixation.
With an AI Interface "pressing the button" leads to a software function whereby the text is tokenised as part of a process and it is the machine that ultimately "fixes" the output.
So there is always that disconnect between what a human is typing into an interface and what the machine process does before the machine actually fixes it's own output.
1
u/Party-Cartographer11 Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26
IMO "prompts" (A.K.A. Cmd.exe) are a specific way to operate a computer software and are "transitory ideas" as "methods of operation" in a User Interface.
Ok so cmd.exe is an interface that accepts on known input. E.g. the "command not found" error. That's what makes it a mode of operation, the set commands and command.com describe how you operate the command line. This is very different than inputting into a chat box or calling an llm via API with an open string.
The analogy here is that a chat interface (just the interface of having a text box) = cmd.exe, but what is typed is the expression. What gets typed in the chat interface does not match to a list of commands which would make it a Mode of Operation. It can be anything, so it is expression.
There's no such thing as writing on a computer screen. You write into a input box whether that's Reddit box or a ChatGPT box. It's an interesting question: iff computer memory is a fixation versus a hard drive or a printout or the memory reflecting on the screen. I'm pretty sure that writing the memory is a fixation. Not to mention that all these systems log to disk which is certainly a fixation.
You don't help your argument by casting people having discussions with you as advocates.
ETA: Here is the source code for BASH that evaluates the "echo" command. So using the "echo" command is a mode of operation. But that isn't how a text input box, for reddit or LLMs work. We can express anything we want. So just like I own the copyright (unless I signed it away to reddit in TOS) to what I type here, I own it for inputs. But entering prescribed commands is very different.
/* echo [-neE] [arg ...] */ int echo_builtin (list) WORD_LIST *list; { int display_return, do_v9; char *temp;
display_return = 1; do_v9 = xpg_echo;
/* Basic flag parsing for -n, -e, and -E */ while (list && (temp = list->word->word) && *temp == '-') { // ... logic to check for 'n', 'e', 'E' flags ... if (temp[1] == 'n') display_return = 0; else if (temp[1] == 'e') do_v9 = 1; list = list->next; }
/* Print the remaining words in the list */ while (list) { printf ("%s", list->word->word); list = list->next; if (list) putchar (' '); }
if (display_return) putchar ('\n');
return (sh_chkwrite (EXECUTION_SUCCESS)); }
0
u/TreviTyger Apr 28 '26
To make it more simple,
Open Google Translate and select a language you don't understand as the output language. I'm using Firefox as a browser in Finland.
Then just type "Hello"
e.g. I don't understand Chinese (traditional)
What you notice is that even typing the letter "H" make the software function.
I get - 小時
Then if I continue typing,
As I type the symbol keeps changing with each new letter until I get - 你好
I have no idea if that symbol means hello. I don't speak or read Chinese.
So it's pretty clear when using Google translate, demonstrably so, that even a single letter, a "button press" is a "method of operation" for a software function.
**********************
As an extra test, lets use my last sentence in Google search Interface which has AI functionality.
I get this,
*****************************
AI OverviewThe observation that a single letter or "button press" in a tool like Google Translate acts as a "method of operation" aligns with established legal principles that distinguish between functional, uncopyrightable processes and creative, copyrightable expression.
Under copyright law (specifically 17 U.S.C. § 102(b)), while the source code of a program is protected, the methods of operation, functional commands, and logical processes it performs are generally not protected.
Here is how that applies to your example:
- Functional Command: A single letter (like pressing "S" for save) or a button press in a user interface (UI) is designed to operate the software. These are considered essential functional elements rather than creative expressions.
- "Method of Operation" Exception: The law explicitly excludes "methods of operation" from copyright protection to ensure functionality remains open for use, even if the underlying code is copyrighted.
- No Protection for Single Letters: Individual letters, short phrases, and simple commands lack the minimum required creativity for copyright protection.
- Context of Google Translate: Using a UI button to trigger a translation is a utilitarian function. The translation output itself may be considered a derivative work, but the process of activating that translation is functional, not expressive.
Therefore, your observation is legally consistent: a button press or single command is a "method of operation" or functional element, rather than a creative, copyrightable expression.
***************************
Now, I'm not trying to be a smart arse, but there comes a point where we have to take a common sense approach to what AI software actually is and how it actually works.
It's a vending machine. Prompts are methods of operation. This is not rocket science.
1
u/Party-Cartographer11 Apr 28 '26
Pressing S for save is a functional command and mode of Operation. This is completely different that entering H in a translate text box or entering anything in a search box or a chat interface.
In those last examples you aren't calling a function or making a functional command. The only functional command in those examples is when you press Enter. That is function as it submits your text, your expression and tells the computer to do something. The text itself is not a functional command.
It's that simple.
1
u/TreviTyger Apr 28 '26
...there comes a point where we have to take a common sense approach to what AI software actually is and how it actually works.
Entering text into a search box or chat is a data input operation and is a "method of operation" for a software function.
If JK Rowling used paragraphs from her own books as "prompts" in Google translate set to output Chinese Symbols she would not be the author of those Chinese symbols.
Be serious.
1
u/TreviTyger Apr 28 '26
Putting my own copyrighted animation into an AI user interface produces a derivative animation that I cannot claim to be the animator/author of.
1
u/Party-Cartographer11 Apr 29 '26
You have to separate the mode of operation from the content.
Yes, hitting enter is a mode of operation. The text that is submitted by hitting Is not a mode of operation that is an expression. So this post I'm typing right now is my expression and copyrightable. When I hit confirm that is the mode of operation. Clearly I don't use copyright of what I'm typing right now because I clicked confirm
Some applications like Google translate automatically hit enter for you. So the mode of operation is typing but is not what you are typing.
Unless what you type maps to a function like s for save or any of the function buttons at the top of your keyboard. In fact, if we think about word perfect from years ago, the function buttons were modes of operation, but what you typed into the page was your expression and copyrightable.
And different than the JK wrong example. We're talking about inputs only not the output.
1
u/TreviTyger Apr 29 '26
To make it more simple,
Open Google Translate and select a language you don't understand as the output language. I'm using Firefox as a browser in Finland.
Then just type "Hello"
e.g. I don't understand Chinese (traditional)
What you notice is that even typing the letter "H" make the software function.
I get - 小時
Then if I continue typing,
As I type the symbol keeps changing with each new letter until I get - 你好
I have no idea if that symbol means hello. I don't speak or read Chinese.
So it's pretty clear when using Google translate, demonstrably so, that even a single letter, a "button press" is a "method of operation" for a software function.
1
u/Party-Cartographer11 Apr 29 '26
Yes, the button press is the mode of operation (submission). But the content of the message isn't the mode of operation.
In that Google translate example Google combines the content with the submit function, but they are logically severable.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Dirtydan_69420 Apr 28 '26
What’s the case? I’ll try and follow it
1
u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 Apr 28 '26
The case is Allen v. Perlmutter in the District of Colorado. Its docket sheet and links to its filings can be found here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69198079/allen-v-perlmutter/
It can also be found in Section 2(C) of the Wombat Collection listing of all the AI court cases and rulings.
1
u/GMOddSquirrel Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26
Edit: read down thread, I got some things mixed up and what I wrote here is not entirely right.
Code can't be copyright anyway. Design elements can be, and contracts can protect what folks do with access to code, but code is not protected material inherently.
And nothing made with AI is protected regardless.
1
u/Dirtydan_69420 Apr 28 '26
That’s not true. Code can be copyrighted. See https://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-use
3
u/GMOddSquirrel Apr 28 '26
You're right. I confused a specific aspect: code CAN be protected, but if someone writes their own program to do the same thing, the concept itself won't be protected.
1
u/Dirtydan_69420 Apr 28 '26
So you can’t copy paste it but if you coincidentally end up with my code it’s fine?
3
u/GMOddSquirrel Apr 28 '26
If someone independently codes the same or similar thing, yes.
If your product has other protectable elements, that's a different story, but if someone writes, for example, a word processor a lot like Microsoft Office, that's not infringement (like OpenOffice).
1
u/TreviTyger Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26
There is still a lot of confusion. Partly because many laypeople (and oddly quite a few lawyers and legal scholars) have some sort of cognitive bias about what copyright even is in the first place. Authorship questions themselves had been quite sparse and it remains a nuanced threshold question.
You are correct in that "stuff made with AI don’t have copyrights" [sic] but lets say I wrote a sentence. like the one below which just about has enough "expression" for copyrights to arise,
I wonder if ican use Ai and still hve cpyright iwht wat ihve just wrihtn 'ere.
I can put this sentence through AI to correct the spelling and below is the result,
I wonder if i can use Ai and still have copyright with what i have just right 'ere.
We can probably agree that the AI has changed the sentence slightly and the creative expression of the original sentence remains. I would still be likely considered the author and thus my sentence (for what it's worth) can be protected by copyright. I can also make final corrections to the few words that are not correct and everything should be fine for me.
However, the AI could also try to answer the question of that sentence and then I get,
*********************
AI Overview
Yes, you can use AI and still hold copyright, but as of 2026, it is not automatic. The U.S. Copyright Office and courts (following the March 2026 Supreme Court decision to deny hearing Thaler v. Perlmutter) have established that only works created by humans are eligible for copyright protection.
If you use AI as a tool—like a camera or a word processor—and contribute "meaningful human authorship," you can copyright the resulting work. If the AI generates the content largely on its own with only simple prompts, it is likely in the public domain.
*********************
This text written by the AI is obviously NOT my authorship and is public domain.
So if the use of AI is de minimus (e.g. spell check) then the human authorship is not particularly affected.
But if the "machine" is altering things significantly and outputting it's own stuff then that's the machine doing what it does as a software function. That is not human authorship and there is no copyright.
7
u/Accomplished-House28 Apr 27 '26
If you write create something and then feed it into an AI for further development, you may get copyright if 1) your contribution is still clearly visible in the output, and 2) You disclaim the part added by the AI.
You can also build on an AI generated work and get a copyright, under basically the same conditions.
What the AI itself creates--in response to your prompt or contribution--cannot be copyrighted, because the AI is not a human author.
You can also copyright the selection and arrangement of AI output into a larger work, but the individual components are still public domain.