Claude is not a person and AI doesn't gain authorship let alone copyright.
Unless you literally vibe coded it, Claude is just a tool. This is the equivalent of Apple appending "Sent from my iPhone" as a signature to outgoing emails. It's advertising tool use, not providing attribution. The intent isn't to disclose that AI was used in creating the code, the intent is to advertise the AI product.
Hmm... It's an interesting question: at what point, in a conversation, document, image, story, does human authorship end and AI authorship begin? How would you know? Is it a tell tale or is it advertising?
> Unless you literally vibe coded it, Claude is just a tool.
Stop with the selective bias, two are birds of the same feather, they are using a "tool" to write the code for them from whatever (questionable) mashed up source they are trained from, in the same way someone is using AI as a "tool" to fabricate their curriculum and cheat a job
> The intent isn't to disclose that AI was used in creating the code, the intent is to advertise the AI product
That is a wild mental gymnastic to justify dishonestly submitting code you didn't write (or own) as yours. It has nothing to do with advertisement but proper attribution, you know it.
There's some repos I'm unashamedly keeping alive with Claude alone and he gets co-authorship - basically stuff in "maintenance mode" that I still use that I've forked and had Claude drag it into 2026
A quick PR where I've found the bug myself in the code, and ask Claude to write the fix because it's faster, and verified it - I don't include Claude's co-authorship.
It's only dishonest not to include Claude in commit/PR attribution if it's also dishonest not to include StackOverflow, or VSCode, or VIM, or Windows, or any of the other tools you used to complete the work!
If I copy a clean solution from stackoverflow, I put it into a separate file with the appropriate license header. IMO that's the absolute minimum degree of separation that any imported code, whether from StackOverflow or AI, should have.
Even if I then edit it to adapt and modify it, I'll just add my copyright header, but I can't replace/remove the original one.
That's a so invalid analogy, editors are effectively tools just like as a hammer because they require constant human input to produce something, the human is in constant control over the whole production process so they don't need to give attribution to the individual tools they used to build a house...
Unlike a black magic box where you just tell it to build something and it does all the production for you while you sit back.
