this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2026
129 points (97.8% liked)
Programming
26193 readers
328 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fascinating talk.
According to the U.S. copyright office and Library of Congress, copyrighted works require a 'human' element: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922
If art generated by AI can not be copyrighted, it may well extend to AI-generated code. If so, the implications could be pretty far-reaching.
The one, practical use-case of AI that has found 'product market fit' so far has been using AI for coding. Companies are encouraging it. Developers (including experienced ones) are starting to use more of it. But if it turns out none of the generated output can be copyrighted, then you lose all the commercial users who are the revenue sources for all these tools and companies.
This talk feels like it's touching on a pretty important topic.
To be fair, this doesn't mean you can't use AI as a tool. An artist or a software developer can generate things with AI and orchestrate the pieces to become a new whole. That whole could still be copyrighted.
In that case the "orchestrate the pieces" part is copyrightable if it reaches a minimum threshold of creativity but the pieces themselves are still not copyrightable because a human still didn't make them??