TechTakes

2472 readers

340 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

dgerard@awful.systems

AI works can’t be copyrighted or patented in the US (pivot-to-ai.com)

submitted 21 hours ago by dgerard@awful.systems to c/techtakes@awful.systems

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

even if you think your robot is alive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoNrMLTJXhE&list=UU9rJrMVgcXTfa8xuMnbhAEA - video
https://pivottoai.libsyn.com/20260304-ai-works-cant-be-copyrighted-or-patented-in-the-us - podcast

time: 6 min 25 sec

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 14 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Heh, this would be fantastic and I think technically in line with the GNU GPL - all code produced from GPL code must also be licensed as GPL. Therefore the output of any model that trained on any GPL code would also be GPL.

Open source all the things!

[–] johnefrancis@lemmy.ca 7 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

The GPL is a license based on copyright. If AI output can't be copyrighted, then it can't be licensed, it becomes public domain, which means you can make a derivative, then copyright that under a commercial license.

With no.copyright, stuff gets weird fast.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

No no, see the GNU GPL is copyleft:

The licenses in the GPL series are all copyleft licenses, which means that any derivative work must be distributed under the same or equivalent license terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

So if (stressing the if) output from an AI that was trained on GPL code is considered a derivative work, then it must also be licensed as GNU GPL. That makes it open source, but not unlicensed.

GNU GPL is intentionally insidious this way, it prevents corporate profiteering from GPL projects because any derivative work must use the same license.

The question is whether a court decision would uphold that AI generated code based on GPL code training counts as a derivative work. This decision regarding generated art seems like it might set a precedent for that.

[–] johnefrancis@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

The GPL is based on rights from copyRIGHT law. It's the author's copyright that allows them to determine how to license it, and the GPL is one of many licenses.

So if something is not able to be copyrighted, then it's not possible to put a copyright license like the GPL on it. The work is in the public domain, no license at all, different rules about derivative works.

If machines generated works (like code) cannot be copyrighted, then they can't be licensed. Is the output of an LLM trained on GPL a derivative work, but can't be copyrighted?

It's a crazy decision, it's going to do a lot of weird stuff, at least in the US. It might invalidate a bunch of the IP treaties that the US negotiated with much of the world since 2000.

[–] Rekall_Incorporated@piefed.social 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Wait, so if you include LLM-derived source code into a GPL project, it loses it's access to copyright?

This doesn't make sense...

And one would thing the same would have to be true of proprietary software.

[–] johnefrancis@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

crazy discussions going on about the consequences.