[HN Gopher] SCOTUS declines to hear dispute over copyrights for ...
___________________________________________________________________
SCOTUS declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI-generated
material
Author : cainxinth
Score : 29 points
Date : 2026-03-02 19:39 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| shagie wrote:
| Other coverage:
|
| * The Supreme Court doesn't care if you want to copyright your
| AI-generated art https://www.engadget.com/ai/the-supreme-court-
| doesnt-care-if...
|
| * U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for
| AI-generated material https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/02/us-supreme-
| court-declines-to...
|
| * AI-generated art can't be copyrighted after Supreme Court
| declines to review the rule
| https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-...
| SirMadam wrote:
| If SCOTUS is saying that AI works, even those co-authored by
| humans, are not eligible for copyright/patenting;
|
| Doesn't that mean any code-base that uses AI generated code does
| not have an implicit copyright holder? And thus even the human
| constructor does not have the right to apply any license
| [closed/open] onto it whatsoever?
| schlauerfox wrote:
| Hopefully.
| RansomStark wrote:
| That's the position I came to based on these rulings, or lack
| thereof. I think of all the reasons open source shouldn't
| accept AI created code is that it can't be protected, and that
| has the potential to threaten the whole project.
|
| OpenClaw, for instance has an MIT license [0], but, per the
| creators own words, they didn't even review the code. OpenClaw
| isn't MIT licensed, the MIT license relies on copyright, and
| because there was not even human review of the majority of the
| code, no substantial human input, that code base can't be
| copyrighted.
|
| No need to steal AI code, it doesn't belong to anyone.
|
| [0] https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw?tab=MIT-1-ov-
| file#readm...
| andriy_koval wrote:
| > Doesn't that mean any code-base that uses AI generated code
| does not have an implicit copyright holder? And thus even the
| human constructor does not have the right to apply any license
| [closed/open] onto it whatsoever?
|
| besides copyright, source code also can be protected as a trade
| secret.
| lazide wrote:
| For a company with any decent number of people with access to
| the code base, extremely difficult to maintain that type of
| protection.
| andriy_koval wrote:
| I mean trade secret as a legal protection: code is declared
| as trade secret. Then if employee leaks it, and other
| company uses it, it can be sued.
| lazide wrote:
| It is not that simple. To have that protection, it needs
| to be treated (and protected) like an actual secret.
|
| It's why the nominal 'top secret' coke formula is stored
| in a giant vault.
|
| If everyone at the company has access (and it's a big
| company), good luck having that protection.
| andriy_koval wrote:
| claude says one needs to take "reasonable steps", which
| includes asking employee to sign NDA, setting access
| control, and putting TRADE SECRET disclosure in source
| files: https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/12/02/fourth-circuit-
| clarifies-r...
| shagie wrote:
| https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/wipo-guide-to-
| trade-se... is likely a good source for the "what
| constitutes trade secret" To enjoy
| trade secret protection, the above mentioned three
| criteria (i.e., secrecy, commercial value because of the
| secrecy, and reasonable steps taken by trade secret
| holders to maintain secrecy) must be complied with (see
| section 2.1 for the criteria to be met).
| Trade secrets can be protected for an unlimited period of
| time, unless they cease to meet the criteria for trade
| secret protection. Trade secret holders can
| seek protection only where unauthorized disclosure,
| acquisition or use of their trade secrets is made in a
| manner contrary to honest commercial practice. In other
| words, they do not enjoy the type of "exclusive rights"
| that are generally available for other categories of IP.
| This will be discussed in the next section.
|
| One of the things there though is that trade secrets
| don't have exclusive rights. If you write code and then
| distribute the application, trade secrets don't protect
| it anymore.
|
| There's also a section on trade secrets and digital
| objects... which includes code ... and that gets into
| _other_ challenges.
|
| https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/wipo-guide-to-
| trade-se... Copyright is another form
| of intellectual property protection available to code and
| algorithms. However, it should be noted that certain
| jurisdictions do not permit an owner to assert both trade
| secret and copyright, especially if the copyrighted
| software discloses a majority of the source code or the
| "proprietary" portions. In the Capricorn case, the court
| held that the source code owner was barred from asserting
| trade secret protection because the code was also
| registered as a copyright, and thus available to the
| public. Therefore, the source code owner should carefully
| consider the pros and cons of each type of protection.
|
| ... it _also_ has guidance on trade secrets and LLMs.
|
| https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/wipo-guide-to-
| trade-se...
| andriy_koval wrote:
| > One of the things there though is that trade secrets
| don't have exclusive rights. If you write code and then
| distribute the application, trade secrets don't protect
| it anymore.
|
| which source says this?
| shagie wrote:
| https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/wipo-guide-to-
| trade-se...
|
| Section 3.2
|
| > As mentioned above, code is the language used to write
| software programs, contains the implementation details of
| algorithms and can reveal crucial business information
| about how data is processed and utilized. Unless an open-
| source strategy is pursued, protecting the
| confidentiality of code and algorithms is paramount to
| prevent unauthorized individuals from understanding or
| reverse-engineering proprietary software in order to
| build and defend competitive edges over competitors. In
| practice, techniques such as code obfuscation,
| encryption, and strict access controls are applied to
| maintain the confidentiality of code (and the algorithms
| behind it) and to prevent unauthorized access or copying.
|
| > There are some industry-specific implications, but it
| is generally far less common to share code and/or
| algorithms between businesses than, for example, sets of
| processed data. This indicates and emphasizes the
| commercial value attributed to, and the level of secrecy
| applied to, code and algorithms and opens a primary
| playing field for digital data trade secrets.
|
| > Copyright is another form of intellectual property
| protection available to code and algorithms. However, it
| should be noted that certain jurisdictions do not permit
| an owner to assert both trade secret and copyright,
| especially if the copyrighted software discloses a
| majority of the source code or the "proprietary"
| portions. In the Capricorn case, the court held that the
| source code owner was barred from asserting trade secret
| protection because the code was also registered as a
| copyright, and thus available to the public. Therefore,
| the source code owner should carefully consider the pros
| and cons of each type of protection.
|
| Key there is the distribution under copyright may
| conflict with trade secrets. Additionally, this is
| sharing _internal_ code. {BigCorp} 's build setup may be
| a trade secret for how it integrates certificates into
| the final build. However, the code and the final build
| are likely covered under copyright. Trade secrets don't
| prevent me from decompiling an application that I've
| legitimately received and publishing the jump tables for
| internal calls (the classic Undocumented Windows: A
| Programmers Guide to Reserved Microsoft Windows Api
| Functions).
|
| Additionally 1.3 in https://www.wipo.int/web-
| publications/wipo-guide-to-trade-se...
|
| > Trade secret holders can seek protection only where
| unauthorized disclosure, acquisition or use of their
| trade secrets is made in a manner contrary to honest
| commercial practice. In other words, they do not enjoy
| the type of "exclusive rights" that are generally
| available for other categories of IP. This will be
| discussed in the next section.
|
| > ...
|
| Section 2.2
|
| > Trade secret protection does not grant exclusive rights
| on the protected information, but regulates the behavior
| of parties and prevents others from engaging in wrongful
| conduct that is against honest commercial practice. In
| essence, when unauthorized third parties acquire,
| disclose or use trade secret information with unlawful,
| improper, dishonest or unfair means, it is deemed
| misappropriation of trade secrets.
|
| > In general, a trade secret owner cannot prevent others
| from independently developing and acquiring the protected
| information on their own and from using or disclosing
| that information. This is because conducting one's own
| R&D or own market analysis etc. to develop valuable
| information is usually deemed honest commercial practice.
| However, once a patentee X obtains a patent on its
| invention A, in principle, another person Y using the
| same invention A infringes the patent, even if Y came up
| with the invention A independently by its own, without
| any knowledge of the invention of the patentee X.
| Therefore, trade secret protection does not confer
| exclusive rights like patent protection does.
| andriy_koval wrote:
| I have two issues with your citations:
|
| 1. I don't have time to read all this copy-paste.
|
| 2. Your citations express personal opinion of someone
| unknown without any grounding in any laws and cases in
| specific jurisdiction, thus not interesting.
| shagie wrote:
| The author is nominally Daren Tang of WIPO.
|
| https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/wipo-guide-to-
| trade-se... ... Trade
| secrets have been hidden gems for too long. It is time to
| bring them into the light, so that they can truly
| sparkle. Whether you are a policymaker or business
| manager, a researcher or entrepreneur, we hope this Guide
| helps you to see the power of trade secrets and the value
| they bring to businesses strategies and global
| innovation. Daren Tang Director
| General World Intellectual Property Organization
|
| ---
|
| The documentation about the organization is at
| https://www.wipo.int/en/web/about-wipo
| The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is
| the United Nations agency that serves the world's
| innovators and creators, ensuring that their ideas travel
| safely to the market and improve lives everywhere.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty
| The World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright
| Treaty (WIPO Copyright Treaty or WCT) is an international
| treaty on copyright law adopted by the member states of
| the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in
| 1996. It provides additional protections for copyright to
| respond to advances in information technology since the
| formation of previous copyright treaties before it.
| andriy_koval wrote:
| thank you for all your irrelevant citations and
| speculations.
|
| the question is still open if that guide is grounded into
| US legal landscape in any way. Unlike good quality legal
| literature which grounds every statement into law or case
| law, that guide does nothing.
| shagie wrote:
| The part "Copyright is another form of intellectual
| property protection available to code and algorithms.
| However, it should be noted that certain jurisdictions do
| not permit an owner to assert both trade secret and
| copyright, especially if the copyrighted software
| discloses a majority of the source code or the
| "proprietary" portions. (2)" provides a link to Capricorn
| Management Systems, Inc. v. Government Employees
| Insurance Co.
|
| The decision can be read at
| https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-
| york/ny...
|
| That decision is about if something can be both a trade
| secret and copyrighted.
| Balinares wrote:
| That hinges on whether you can convince a judge that your
| LLM's slop meets the requirement of being inaccessible to
| other professionals of the same field, and that
| committing it to your repo meets the bar for keeping it
| secret.
|
| I wouldn't hold my breath.
| popalchemist wrote:
| This would only apply if the codebase were 100% vibe coded. If
| there is human input - as there is in code, with the role of
| the software engineer, then it falls into another category for
| the sake of copyright arguments. And the way it works is
| copyright is granted automatically and only revoked/denied
| through litigation.
| lesuorac wrote:
| > If SCOTUS is saying that AI works, even those co-authored by
| humans, are not eligible for copyright/patenting;
|
| They aren't.
|
| The copyright office isn't either.
|
| Everybody is very explictly saying that if you use say Sora to
| generate an image and you apply for a copyright with "Sora" as
| the author it'll be denied.
|
| Same as if you apply for a copyright with "My Dog" as the
| author.
|
| Authors must be humans and if you do not fill the author field
| out with a human it's denied. This has nothing to do with the
| tool used to create the art work.
| SirMadam wrote:
| While I would like to believe you, doesn't this legal
| document linked by the article show that, in at least one of
| the cases, the author WAS trying to apply with himself, "Mr.
| Allen", as the author? And not the AI?
|
| https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/byprrqkqxpe/.
| ..
| scuff3d wrote:
| Given how the models were trained for coding, every single code
| base that uses any code generated by an LLM should be required
| to be open sourced, or at least source available.
|
| I'm not saying there is currently a legal president to enforce
| this, I'm saying ethically it make sense.
| georgemcbay wrote:
| I pretty much agree with you in principle, but I'm also
| positive this will never happen.
| keernan wrote:
| There is a huge difference between SCOTUS "declines to hear"
| versus SCOTUS "rules that ..."
|
| Certainly there is no difference to these particular parties. But
| refusing to hear the case in such an important field as AI is
| simply an indication SCOTUS is feels it is too early for it to be
| making rules involving a very fast moving and transformative
| field as AI.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Or that the law is already settled... the ape selfie determined
| already authors must be human
| bitwize wrote:
| What it generally means is that the lower court ruling stands
| and serves as precedent nationwide. Binding precedent in the
| circuit that handed down the ruling. But another circuit may
| make a different ruling sometime, and then the Supremes
| practically have to hear the case to resolve the conflict.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-02 23:02 UTC)