Comment on I Went All-In on AI. The MIT Study Is Right.
MangoCats@feddit.it 4 days agoIf you outsource you could at least sure them when things go wrong.
Most outsourcing consultants I have worked with aren’t worth the legal fees to attempt to sue.
Plus you can own the code if a person does it.
I’m not aware of any ownership issues with code I have developed using Claude, or any other agents. It’s still mine, all the more so because I paid Claude to write it for me, at my direction.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 4 days ago
AI doesn’t get IP protections.
MangoCats@feddit.it 4 days ago
Nobody is asking it to (except freaks trying to get news coverage.)
It’s like compiler output - no, I didn’t write that assembly code, gcc did, but it did it based on my instructions. My instructions are copyright by me, the gcc interpretation of them is a derivative work covered by my rights in the source code.
When a painter paints a canvas, they don’t record the “source code” but the final work is also still theirs, not the brush maker or the canvas maker or paint maker (though some pigments get a little squirrely about that…)
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 4 days ago
First, how much that is true is debatable. Second, that doesn’t matter as far as the output. No one can legally own that.
MangoCats@feddit.it 4 days ago
It’s actually settled case law. AI does not hold copyright any more than spell-check in a word processor does. The person using the AI tool to create the work holds the copyright.
Idealistic notions aside, this is no different than PIXAR owning the Renderman output that is Toy Story 1 through 4.