Ok, so, someone used an LLM do create changes. This new code is no longer under the project license it is, as you say, public domain.
Except it is, depending on code similarity. The court uses the same rules as with book plagiarism. If LLM uses exactly same code structure and only renames some variables or adds pieces of code that do nothing useful, high chances the court will declare it a derived work and enforce the license.
They ruled that for copyright to apply, a human must have authored the work.
Now if an AI spits out code that’s a duplicate of a humans authored work. Then you could argue the author is actually the original human. And this it would be covered by their original copyright
Except it is, depending on code similarity. The court uses the same rules as with book plagiarism. If LLM uses exactly same code structure and only renames some variables or adds pieces of code that do nothing useful, high chances the court will declare it a derived work and enforce the license.
Nope. Courts decided: AI output is never copyrightable.
They ruled that for copyright to apply, a human must have authored the work.
Now if an AI spits out code that’s a duplicate of a humans authored work. Then you could argue the author is actually the original human. And this it would be covered by their original copyright