Getty's business relies on the legal framework of copyright, and how it enables control (and sale) of the licensing of copyrighted material. And they're saying: nope - AI output is so ambiguous w.r.t. copyright and licensing of the inputs (when it's not flagrantly in violation, as with recreating our watermarks), that we want to steer totally clear of this.
When HN has discussed Github's Copilot [1] for coding, it seems like the role of copyright and licensing isn't discussed in much detail [2] (with some exceptions awhile back [3, 4]).
Do you think there is a software-development analog to Getty (I mean a company, not FSF), saying "no copilot-generated code here"? Or is the issue of copyright/licensing/attribution even murkier with code than for images?
When HN has discussed Github's Copilot [1] for coding, it seems like the role of copyright and licensing isn't discussed in much detail [2] (with some exceptions awhile back [3, 4]).
Do you think there is a software-development analog to Getty (I mean a company, not FSF), saying "no copilot-generated code here"? Or is the issue of copyright/licensing/attribution even murkier with code than for images?
[1] https://github.com/features/copilot/
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=1&prefix=false&qu...
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32187362
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31874166