Hacker News Reader

>the ai copy pasted the existing project.

The change log says the implementation is completely different, not a copy paste. Is that wrong?

>Internal architecture is completely different (probers replaced by pipeline stages). Only the public API is preserved.

It's up to them to prove that a) the original implementation was not part of whatever data set said AI used and b) that the engineers in question did not use the original as a basis.

It's up to the accuser to prove that they copied it and did not actually write it from scratch as they claimed.

No, that's not how copyright laws work. Especially in a world where the starting point is the accused making something and marketing it as someone else's IP with a license change.

It's still on the claimant to establish copying, which usually involves showing that the two works are substantially similar in protected elements. That the defendants had access to the original helps establish copying, but isn't on its own sufficient.

Only after that would the burden be on the defendants, such as to give a defense that their usage is sufficiently transformative to qualify as fair use.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com