> Actually not: the copyright claim would be particularly egregious in, e.g. the UK, because if the publisher has not even acknowledged or attributed contributions to Claude, then Claude's copyright is infringed
I think you are wrong there. Claude cannot hold a copyright. Anthropic might but I think that is a misinterpretation of the law. The government thinks the person who prompted holds the copyright: "In the case of a general purpose AI which generates output in response to a user prompt, the “author” will usually be the person who inputted the prompt." :
Are you saying that this is wrong and the developer of the LLM holds the copyright on all its output?
> And to address your second point: if the publisher claims 100% ownership, authorship and copyright, then who can even determine the amount of LLM-authored code?
Does it matter? Either the human author/prompter holds the copyright, or no one does. They just need to show that they have made a sufficient contribution to hold the copyright. Commits and prompt history would be a good start.
I think you are wrong there. Claude cannot hold a copyright. Anthropic might but I think that is a misinterpretation of the law. The government thinks the person who prompted holds the copyright: "In the case of a general purpose AI which generates output in response to a user prompt, the “author” will usually be the person who inputted the prompt." :
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/report-and-impact...
Are you saying that this is wrong and the developer of the LLM holds the copyright on all its output?
> And to address your second point: if the publisher claims 100% ownership, authorship and copyright, then who can even determine the amount of LLM-authored code?
Does it matter? Either the human author/prompter holds the copyright, or no one does. They just need to show that they have made a sufficient contribution to hold the copyright. Commits and prompt history would be a good start.