As it should be.

From the lawyer's blog post,

> We received the decision today relative to Kristina Kashtanova's case about the comic book Zarya of the Dawn. Kris will keep the copyright registration, but it will be limited to the text and the whole work as a compilation. > > In one sense this is a success, in that the registration is still valid and active.

How is that a "success?" Literally no one was suggesting the author didn't have a valid copyright on the text or the composition.

> However, it is the most limited a copyright registration can be and it doesn't resolve the core questions about copyright in AI-assisted works.

Ummmm.... AI-assisted works were never in play here. These images were AI-created. Per the author's own depiction of the process.

> Those works may be copyrightable, but the USCO did not find them so in this case.

AI-assisted works may be copyrightable, yes, but that's not what you were representing.

There are many artists who are doing amazing work using Generative AI as a tool. This wasn't that.

The biggest problem is one of terminology, we don't have good terms to distinguish between someone who feeds a prompt into a Generative AI and and calls it a day and someone who uses a Generative AI as just another tool in their toolkit, so they all get lumped in together. This lawyer muddying the waters by suggesting Kashtanova's works were AI-assisted does no one any good.

>That decision wasn't about copyrighted photos.

And every knowledge person agrees this protects images as well.

Training a generative AI does not adversely impact the rights of artists.

This is really transformative fair use.

👌 Good luck with that.

I'm not a programmer and I do understand the law.

https://towardsdatascience.com/the-most-important-supreme-court-decision-for-data-science-and-machine-learning-44cfc1c1bcaf

You missed the point, I'm not making a spurious "whataboutism" claim.

Attribution is required by copyright.

If I take a snippet of code from stackoverflow and put it in my open source project, that's fine.

Nobody is saying it isn't.

What isn't fine is slapping a license on a file which includes that code without specifying that that code isn't subject to the license—that's claiming ownership of something which isn't yours and trying to attach a license to it.

Beyond that, you really need to re-read the stackoverflow ToS, because they don't quite say what you seem to think.

You are wrong.

https://towardsdatascience.com/the-most-important-supreme-court-decision-for-data-science-and-machine-learning-44cfc1c1bcaf

>There is an argument that co-pilot outputting open source code without credit or the license breaks the license. It will output stuff from open source projects verbatim (I can't find the link, maybe it was in Twitter? I can't back this up.), so this isn't a case where the code is inspired by the code, it really is the code and has to abide by the license.

There is an argument that this doesn't matter (from GitHub's perspective).

It's already been pretty well established that AI can be trained on copyrighted photos without issue.

That said image generating AI can produce works which infringe on copyright. So, Copilot could certainly produce code covered by a license. Which would then possibly lead to the Copilot user being in violation of the license.

That said...

While code is copyrighted, the protections of that copyright aren't absolute.

For instance, I don't think anyone would doubt that there are examples of code under license which includes elements lifted from elsewhere without attribution—stackoverflow, etc—for which the author would not have a valid claim of authorship.

But, even for people who wrote their own code, 100% by scratch, there are limitations.

If the copying is a very small element of the whole it's less likely to be problematic.

If the code represents a standard method of doing something or if there's only a few ways to accomplish what the code does, it's not likely to be able to be copyrightable.

Now, the vast majority of my programming work is done in purely functional programming languages—object-oriented languages have much more opportunity for creative expression. I write a lot of code implementing algorithms, most of which are very complex, and I'd be very hard pressed to justify claiming the copyright on most of the code I write.

Regardless of how clever I think some of my code may be, I'm also certain that any other competent person implementing the same algorithm would end up with code >95% essentially identical to mine.

Honestly, I don't see this lawsuit going anywhere, as I understand it, any copied snippets are fairly short and standard.