upvote

points

by yankohr15 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby tln15 hours ago|
next
[-]
Absolutely, messing with commits is more invasive than messages. It gets worse:

"Sent from my iPhone" appears in the authoring view, and you can delete it.

Co-authored-by: NEVER appears in the commit message UI - it is added without the user even seeing it.

reply
upvoteby apexalpha5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
My Claude Code just puts it in the commit which anyone can read before pushing. Is that not the case here?
reply
upvoteby adastra224 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I don't use git features in vscode, but from what I understand the user clicked some button to make a commit, typed in a commit message, and then hit "OK" and the editor called `git commit ...` in the background... after silently adding "Co-Authored by Microsoft Copilot" to the commit message.

That's a little different than Claude doing the commits all by itself and happening to include an attribution line. Especially since, as it turns out, this was being done on clients that had all the AI stuff turned off. But even if that weren't the case, it'd still be wrong.

Also you shouldn't be using Claude that way...

reply
upvoteby wallst071 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It's technically the same thing because a pre-commit hook can easily remove it.

I did this with the very first versions of claude which didn't have a documented setting to turn it off, and kept it every since. It works with every single coding tool because it just looks for the same key word.

reply
upvoteby bbor1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Nothing wrong at all with separating out Claude’s work with commits! In fact, it’s preferable IMO — it lets people browsing the history identify code that was primarily written by AI.
reply
upvoteby wallst071 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
But it actually doesn't.

This is not just a hypothetical but a non-common workflow: I already wrote upstaged code change myself. I ask claude to review it, and if ok, commit and push.

At no point did claude author any of it, just a review. So a co-author statement is false.

reply
upvoteby Esophagus413 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
And also those early Spotify days where Spotify would automatically post what you’re listening to to your Facebook wall.

I’ve always seen that practice of using the user as your recommendation lever without their consent as unethical.

reply
upvoteby delecti14 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Those services always asked ahead of time though. And at the time, it was seen as cool, like a not-so-subtle "look at me, listening to music on this cool service".
reply
upvoteby heisenbit4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
My suspicion is that it violates the users copyright on their commit message.
reply
upvoteby rodw2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Technically (in the US at least) purely AI-generated content has no copyright, hence any copyright associated with the commit can only assigned to the human authors (or the entity they are working for). As I understand it neither Copilot nor Microsoft should have any actual claim of authorship (from a copyright/IP perspective).

It's still quite problematic IMO

reply
upvoteby visarga5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
That makes the bite less damaging - if everyone hax "Co-authored-by AI" in their commits less shame for it, just a normal fact of life now, not a sign of low quality.
reply
upvoteby aDyslecticCrow2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's either neutral useless information, or a sign of low quality. It's never positive.

Its a sign that the developer didn't pay attention to what they committed. Like a spelling error, or forgetting to run the linter.

If the IDE added "written with vscode" i would be equally furious.

reply
upvoteby Pay081 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
According to the link, the message changing isn't visible to the user in any way (besides running a git log after the fact).
reply
upvoteby Henchman219 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I think it's kinda cute that you don't see it as an attempt to steal code by claiming they "co-authored" it. How long before they claim they can use any code co-authored by Copilot in training? How long before you see your own code, "co-authored by Copilot" as an output in a commercial product that YOU aren't making a profit from? Just a thought :)
reply
upvoteby Pay082 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I've never heard of git commits being used in a legal case, do you have any examples?
reply
upvoteby 11 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby polski-g15 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Good point. That fake commit addendum means that the entire commit contents would not be under copyright protection. AI generated code is not currently copyrightable.
reply
upvoteby jiveturkey14 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It doesn't mean that. A Co-Authored-By header isn't a legal signature or legal assertion of AI generated code.
reply
upvoteby VanTheBrand14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It’s certainly an assertion.
reply
upvoteby whattheheckheck15 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Is thos actually decided yet? Closest thing was the image generation cases. What's your go to source for this?
reply
upvoteby bdangubic15 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Not that simple… this is great read: https://legallayer.substack.com/p/who-owns-the-claude-code-w...
reply
upvoteby bjt10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Still if you're the lawyer on the side of the lawsuit claiming that the code is copyrightable, you really don't want that copilot attribution in the commit message muddying the waters.
reply
upvoteby hirvi7412 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Outside this instance, how can one prove code was AI generated beyond a reasonable doubt? Also, do you (or anyone else) know how much AI/copied-code has to be modified for it to be considered independent?

If AI generates code, and one just renames some variables/method signatures, then what?

reply
upvoteby tyre12 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> how can one prove code was AI generated beyond a reasonable doubt?

Subpoena the provider they use.

Even if they don’t retain the full context, they have to save API calls for billing and analytics. If you’re clauding for the hour up to and after the commit, one can reasonably assume you built it with (if not exclusively by) AI.

reply
upvoteby skinfaxi2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> If you’re clauding for the hour up to and after the commit, one can reasonably assume you built it with (if not exclusively by) AI.

That's not beyond a reasonable doubt.

reply
upvoteby Gibbon115 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
One could argue that Co-Authored by Copilot means 'not under copyright'
reply
upvoteby Aurornis14 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The headline literally says the line is being inserted regardless of usage, which makes it easy to argue that it’s entirely meaningless as an indicator of AI use at all.
reply
upvoteby Gibbon113 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
If you can get AI to write your slop is it really socially valuable enough to justify copyright?

Even before AI copyrighting software was questionable.

reply
upvoteby saghm3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The point they're making is that this happens even in code where AI didn't write it. One of the comments on the page is from someone mentioning they have all Copilot and AI features turned off, and it still added this to their commits. You can't conclude anything about whether AI could write it from the presence of this in a commit message.
reply
upvoteby 13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby kaashif2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
One would be completely wrong.

AI is a tool that may make copyright violations more likely, but whether the output violates copyright is a property of the output, not how it was produced.

If you copy and paste leaked closed source code or if your AI produces it verbatim, you're in trouble either way. Change it up a bit and you're fine in practice in both cases.

reply
upvoteby VanTheBrand14 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Yeah the current guidance from US copyright office is that if it were said to be solely authored by copilot it would not be eligible for copyright. If it were said to be solely authored by human A (who happened to use co-pilot) the elements and arrangement of it not generated by co-pilot would be copyrightable. I’m not sure the copyright office has released guidance on attempting to register AI as a co-author I assume the registration would be rejected but you’d be able to re-submit as sole Human author.
reply