Ivan Moreno just published an article in Law360 (paywalled) Tech’a AI Coding Boom on Collision Course with Copyright.
Moreno discusses my essay Vibe Coding Authorship, forthcoming in the UCLA Law Review Discourse. My essay analyzes the problem created by the growing phenomenon that AI engineers and businesses are boasting about how their computer programs are “100% vibe-coded,” meaning all lines of computer code were written by AI. Instead of writing computer code, the human gave the AI natural-language prompts on what to do. Presto.
My essay explains why, under the current restrictive approach of the U.S. Copyright Office (i.e., that “prompts alone” do not produce a work of authorship eligible for copyright, see p. 18), a “100% vibe coded” computer program might not even qualify for copyright as a work of human authorship. I disagree and offer the better way for courts to analyze vibe-coded computer programs by applying the courts’ longstanding precedents recognizing authorship based on the original selection or arrangement of elements, such as the organization of various modules in a computer program or its display of various audiovisual elements during operation.
Moreno’s excellent reporting also included an interesting detail from Ryan Abbott, who has represented Stephen Thaler in both patent inventorship and copyright authorship lawsuits. Although the courts rejected Thaler’s attempt to have AI be deemed an inventor or an author, Abbott reveals a similar boasting by drug companies:
“Prior to my Thaler case, there were lots of drug development companies putting on the front of their website, ‘Our AI generates new drugs’ and then Thaler came out and all that stuff fell off the internet,” [Abbott explained].
I suspect we are witnessing that now with respect to “100% vibe-coded programs.” Businesses and AI engineers at businesses won’t be boasting about how all of their computer programs are “100% vibe-coded programs.”
If they do, they might be putting the nail in the coffin for any claim to copyright. And they will lack a basis to file any DMCA notices when others start widely sharing copies of their computer programs without permission.
That nightmare scenario may have recently occurred with Anthropic’s Claude Code, although Anthropic did send DMCA copyright infringement notices to the website(s) where Anthropic’s computer program was being shared.
