@thomasjwebb@mastodon.social @Foxboron@chaos.social @scy@chaos.social They decide that. AI material is not human generated, so not copyrightable.
But it doesn't mean this material is not copyright infringement, the only dropped case concerned AI ppl trying to sue other AI ppl based on copyright, not at all real human pursuing AI material.
Currently NYT is on this way, and solid rock at this time : https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/05/technology/new-york-times-perplexity-ai-lawsuit.html
undefined
aeris
@aeris@firefish.imirhil.fr
Posts
-
Apparently chardet got Claude to rewrite the entire codebase from LGPL to MIT? -
Apparently chardet got Claude to rewrite the entire codebase from LGPL to MIT?@Foxboron@chaos.social @joshbressers@infosec.exchange @scy@chaos.social Supreme court dismissed copyright case against generated material. Nobody discard case for infringement by this generated material.
You can't pursue somebody for reusing your AI material, because such material can't be copyrighted), but you can pursue somebody to have generated AI material from your copyrighted (and so not AI) material. -
Apparently chardet got Claude to rewrite the entire codebase from LGPL to MIT?@Foxboron@chaos.social @scy@chaos.social No. You can violate existing copyrighted material during creation of a not copyrightable material.