this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2026
1150 points (95.7% liked)
Programmer Humor
29713 readers
1532 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
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
The claim being made here isn’t wild conjecture. It’s based on a legal analysis done by the congressional research service. That’s a rather authoritative source that Congress itself uses to understand the implications of many things - amongst which are the implications and impacts of the laws it codifies.
What is your supposition based on, such that it’s more authoritative than that?
Just as a sanity check: the person you're responding to is a serial troll and what I can only describe as intellectually dishonest at best or a pathological liar at worst. They make up whatever they want and will never concede that the fucking nonsense they just dreamed up five seconds ago based on nothing is wrong in the face of conclusive proof otherwise.
You shouldn't waste your time responding to this cretin.
I get it; I respond to these things in a cogent and incisive fashion so that other users can see a sane counterpoint, or at least a request for justification or proof that then goes unfulfilled.
Oh, sorry, I said that totally wrong: I meant that I really appreciate your first comment and that it's not worth your time to reply to their bad-faith follow-up comment.
Windows was already copyrighted and registered with the office before ai code was introduced.
The copyright office refusing to register the version with ai code does not affect the already registered copyright.
The version with ai code is a derivative product of the registered version so M$ will get you for copyright infringement.
Not considering this obvious context makes the Twitter poster completely unreliable.
Yeah I read the link at the bottom, it doesn't claim what the post claims at all.
My supposition is that the human element that creates the code is that of the AI Company and not the user, on the basis that the user is actually incapable of doing so.
Would you be willing to elaborate a little more to raise credibility in light of this comment?
Like, what are the links posted saying then, if not the statement in this post, by your expert analysis?
Oh yarr, heck yeah, here look at this part right here:
That's where the article doesn't say the generative works are public domain. And furthermore this other part:
Is where it doesn't say all terms of service contracts between the user and company are magically invalidated.
Do you have any other questions I can answer by presenting quotes of the parts that are not there?
P.S. Why are you quoting Supposition, I literally used the same term as the comment above it.
Hey, so here's the official opinion of the US copyright office on this matter.
If you look at this part right here:
That's where it says that right now, generative works are ineligible for copyright.
Thank you for that! 🙏
For sure! Decent people gotta stick up for each other on here, especially in the face of such prolific (and increasingly amusing) misinformation.
You know what, decent recognize decent. ❤️ Trolls can go stub a toe.
But it doesn't say it is public domain nor invalidate the contract between the user. It also does not clearly define how much human element does or does not make it copyrightable.
The only two examples in the text were AI Generated Images.
Also, Not Copyrightable != Public Domain
For example, any new kind of wrench is not copyrightable either but other types of property laws like Patents and Licensure apply to their creation.
My advice, and I say this from a place of goodwill and empathy, is that nobody should use slop code nor treat it as their own code because until congress and legislative bodies around the world clarify this it is not factual.
Not being under copyright means it is in the public domain. That's literally the entire definition.
Why do you keep bringing this up? Nobody else here cares and this claim isn't in dispute - open source software can and is licensed all the time. That doesn't change your initial claims about the output from Generative AI not being able to be held under copyright.
Man, it sure is weird how you ignore that they explicitly clarify that this applies to generated text too:
God this is satisfying. Thank you for being like this.
Being in the public domain means being there in perpetuity. The Copyright Office is rejecting generated image applications while asking for future legislature to clarify.
Do not use slop code.
Nope!
It's uncommon but public domain works can absolutely have their copyright restored.
But it doesn't say it is public domain nor invalidate the contract between the user.
Not Copyrightable != Public Domain
Nope, that's exactly what it means.
Ah yes I recognitize that quote, of course, its from god. Clearly the authority of the laws of our countries mean nothing in the face of that quote. /s
No, it's from wikipedia.
🙄 Very mature. 👍
I'm not asking what it doesn't say, in case you missed that. I was asking what it does say, according to you.
(I was quoting your use of supposition because you are supposing stuff instead of making verifiable claims.)
Its right there under OP's post go read it
I'm asking for your opinion, though. Your understanding of what's written.
If you just go around saying "what everyone is saying this authority is saying is false, and what I'm "supposing" is correct", you should back it up with why. With on what you're basing your supposition. Otherwise you're just not credible.
Tagging your user profile as "Fact Troll" with a yellow color until further notice. 👍