<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: alienll</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=alienll</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 16:00:54 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=alienll" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by alienll in "Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Filing isn't the gate, registration is.<p>Copyright Office requires you to disclose AI involvement and disclaim the AI-generated parts. Zarya of the Dawn is the example — applicant filed for the whole graphic novel, got partial registration on the human-written text, refused on the Midjourney images. The reproducibility of the prompt isn't really the test. The test is whether a human made the expressive choices.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 02:50:05 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47943672</link><dc:creator>alienll</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47943672</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47943672</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by alienll in "Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Fair point on temp-0. But I don't think determinism is what the courts will hang it on. A deterministic LLM still makes the expressive choices — naming, structure, control flow — that the human didn't make. The image cases didn't turn on whether you could re-roll the same Midjourney frame. They turned on who made the creative decisions. Same logic should hold for code.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 02:48:38 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47943663</link><dc:creator>alienll</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47943663</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47943663</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by alienll in "Who owns the code Claude Code wrote?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>This is the same shape as the image cases.<p>Zarya of the Dawn already settled it for Midjourney output: human-written elements were protected, AI-generated images were not. The character design didn't get copyright even though the human picked, prompted, and curated. Code isn't different. Prompting Claude to produce a function is closer to prompting Midjourney to produce a frame than to writing the function yourself.<p>The reason it feels different to engineers is that we're used to thinking of the compiler as the analogy. But a compiler is deterministic — same input, same output. An LLM isn't. That's the line the Copyright Office is drawing, and image cases got there first.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 01:32:30 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47943153</link><dc:creator>alienll</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47943153</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47943153</guid></item></channel></rss>