找到 13 篇相关文章
The art portfolio platform Cara, designed for creators who don’t want their work used to train AI, has been under assault by trolls seizing and publishing its data.
If you use GitHub Copilot, Claude, Cursor or any other AI coding assistant to write production code, the legal ownership of what you ship is less settled than your licence agreement implies. The US Copyright Office ruled in January 2025 that purely AI-generated material is not copyrightable, and that prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to earn protection. Code you wrote with heavy AI assistance sits in an uncertain middle ground: it may be copyrightable, it may not, and no court has drawn the line for software. The answer-first version: you probably do not own copyright in the portions of your code that an AI wrote without substantial human direction, and you may not be able to prove where the boundary lies. This does not mean someone else owns it — it may be uncopyrightable altogether, like a phone book. But your employment contract, your client agreement and your open-source licence all assume you hold full copyright in your deliverables. That assumption is now an open question. The rule, plainly stated Purely AI-generated output is not copyrightable in the United States. This is not a prediction or a legal opinion; it is the stated position of the US Copyright Office, set out in its January 2025 report Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability . The report received over 10,000 public comments and represents the Office’s most comprehensive statement on the subject. Its conclusions are clear: “material generated wholly by AI is not copyrightable”, and existing law is adequate to handle the question without new legislation. The nuance sits in the middle ground — which is exactly where most AI-assisted coding lives. What the Copyright Office said The report draws several lines. First, it confirms the long-standing requirement that copyright requires a human author. An AI system cannot be an author, regardless of how sophisticated its output. Second, it addresses prompts: “based on the functioning of current generally available
Reddit advances lawsuit accusing Perplexity AI of conspiring with web scraper.
New behavior capturing a writer's "broad qualities" could have legal implications.
Meme generator may have screwed up by using templates in outputs, expert says.
A federal judge has signed off on Anthropic's $1.5 billion class action settlement with authors who accused the company of training its AI models on copyrighted books, as reported earlier by Reuters. In an order on Monday, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín writes that the settlement will provide "meaningful relief," offering authors around $3,000 for each book […]
A hacker took names, phone numbers, and physical addresses of millions of customers who used AI music generator Suno.
Sony Music Entertainment has filed another lawsuit against Udio, accusing the AI music generator of infringing the copyright of more than 30,000 of its songs, ranging from Elvis Presley's Hound Dog to Beyoncé's Say My Name, and Harry Styles' As It Was. The lawsuit, filed in a New York court on Monday, claims that this […]
News publishers say OpenAI hid tools and datasets that could identify copyrighted journalism in ChatGPT outputs, escalating their lawsuit with a new motion for sanctions.
Scammers are hijacking government websites to upload ads for “leaked” OnlyFans content. Thousands of copyright complaints from adult creators are helping people avoid malicious links.
NYT shifts OpenAI/Microsoft copyright claims after SCOTUS ruling against Sony.
In 2024, Orca Security sued Wiz and demanded their full git version control history. Orca wanted to see "when features and functions were added, modified, or altered, including through engineers' notes and comments." The court recognized git history as relevant evidence in a software IP dispute. It ordered production of commit logs tied to two specific features. That ruling should concern you. Your commits record author name, email, timestamp, and content hash. Git chains them together cryptographically, replicates them across clones, and makes them discoverable in litigation. You are building a legal record whether you intend to or not. You already use git as a development tool. It is also a chain of custody for intellectual property. And you are probably destroying yours. A Cryptographic Chain of Custody Every git commit stores five things: the content of the change, the author's name and email, the author's timestamp, the committer's name and email, and the committer's timestamp. That commit is hashed using SHA-1 (or SHA-256 in newer repositories), and the hash incorporates the hash of the parent commit. Change one byte anywhere in the chain and every subsequent hash changes. This is a Merkle DAG. The same data structure that makes blockchains tamper-evident. Your commit history is a cryptographic proof linking each change to all previous changes. Git records three layers of timestamps. AuthorDate is when the content was written. CommitterDate is when it was finalized into the repository. And the server-side push timestamp, recorded by GitHub or GitLab, marks when the remote received the data. That third timestamp is outside the developer's control. A clone is a full copy of the entire history. Your collaborators, CI runners, and backup systems each hold an independent replica. Forensics researchers call this "evidence proliferation." Tampering with one copy does nothing if fifty others exist unchanged. Under Federal Rules of Evidence 902(14), data verified throu
CNN has filed a lawsuit against Perplexity, claiming that the startup's AI tools generate "verbatim" copies of its work, as reported earlier by CNN. The lawsuit, filed in a New York court on Thursday, also alleges that Perplexity provides users with information locked behind CNN's subscription. Perplexity, which offers an AI "answer" engine along with […]