Ironic. Even more so since it seems like in general LLM output doesn't seem to be proteced by copyright in the first place. And since Claude code is entirely written by Claude code, it shouldn't be proteced as well.
A common misunderstanding AFAIK. It is true that Claude, not being a person, can't be assigned a copyright by itself, but a person that interacts with Claude generally can. The famous monkey selfie case [1] was different mainly because the human "photographer" had absolutely no role in the creation of work. Most LLM uses don't fall into such ambiguity.
I've heard and read it from various sources already that output isn't copyrightable, and hinted as such recently in a comment. Now I've went to look up some sources.
> Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there
is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.
> Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute
authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
I really hope that someone disputes their DMCA claim based on that. I imagine no one will, since they'll probably be sued by Anthropic, but it would be really funny.
There's no way it was entirely written by Claude Code. But even if it were, collections and databases can be protected even if their individual elements are not.
What's this armchair lawyer interpretation I'm hearing these last weeks, "LLM output doesn't seem protected by copyright"? It's extremely clear, from jurisprudence, that the level of human intervention in the process is what determines if it's copyrightable. This blanket statement is sensationalist, to say the least.
