There are a couple of fascinating (an easier hook than saying disturbing) articles to review this weekend. One is a short read touching on a problem with Creative Commons in the GenAI space. The second is the results from a survey of 574 GitHub developers; this report collates their perspectives. The 41 pages are what you expect to see in a scholarly report, but it’s worth at least a scan.
Delta Think:
Are Creative Commons licenses problematic in AI? In December, Dan Pollock wrote an article on their website asking, How much content can AI legally exploit? He is certainly correct that the legal landscape is both complex and evolving. But one paragraph is particularly noteworthy – “The Open Access Paradox.” In it, he touches on the attribution requirement of CC licenses and that may be unworkable. This is the first I have seen this addressed, but I will research the legal argument further. The question becomes, is a CC0 license a must as opposed to CC-BY?
From William & Mary scholars:
AI code is being written by those with little copyright or legal training. Surprise? The study, Developer Perspectives on Licensing and Copyright Issues Arising from Generative AI for Coding, found that only 12% had any formal training in the legal implications of using code generation models. 43% of those had sought out training on their own. (§4.2.4) One of the conclusions of this report is that “Developers expect tools that can provide them with citations and will not lead them unwittingly into legal trouble.” (8.4) That is certainly true of GenAI projects with Bible translation projects. This study is a good reminder of why the legal questions won’t go away easily.
Blessings, and have a great weekend!
Bruce Erickson © 2025 This article is licensed Attribution CC BY-SA 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa).