1. The copyright claim is valid in places where LLM output is always covered by copyright.
2. It may be valid in places where sufficient human contribution makes AI code covered by copyright.
Even if it is not covered by copyright everywhere, it has a significant effect. If something is covered by copyright in some countries but not others its cannot be globally distributed without a license.
> 1. The copyright claim is valid in places where LLM output is always covered by copyright.
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, and the publisher could be liable for fraud on top of that.
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? Something must come out in depositions or the courtroom about how much Claude committed, and how much was by humans, because in this case in this thread, the publisher has claimed 100% human authorship.
> 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.
2. It may be valid in places where sufficient human contribution makes AI code covered by copyright.
Even if it is not covered by copyright everywhere, it has a significant effect. If something is covered by copyright in some countries but not others its cannot be globally distributed without a license.