Having had my copyright in Wimsy challenged already (sigh), let me inject some research reapplied to this...
I am also not a lawyer, but I did read the judgements.
IANAL, but the XSF IPR policy has some wording in it relevant in this
context. Specifically:
- §3.1 says that the author assigns ownership over the XEP to the XSF.
In recent case law, it was established that AI generated content lacks
human authorship. As such the author (referring to the human using the
AI) is unable to assign ownership, because they lack it themselves.
That's not the case globally, by any stretch. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Copyright Designs and Patents Act of 1988 says that if a work is computer generated, then the copyright rests with the human who caused it to be created:
Having legislation in place puts the UK in a rather unique situation, and this law is currently under review as I understand things. Though I'd note that our government is at least as incompetent as the others around the world, so I wouldn't hold my breath...
- §3.1 also says the XEP shall be copyrighted by the XSF. In recent
case law, it was found that AI generated content can not be
copyrighted.
As far as I can tell, only the US has any case law related specifically to AI, under Thaler v. Perlmutter (D.D.C. 2023). However, this explicitly refers to "AI‑generated works without human creative input", as does the CJEU case law (which isn't specific to AI, but establishes the same basic precedent).
The Thaler v Perlmutter case seems to have been broadly misinterpreted. Thaler submitted a work for copyright registration that was explicitly authored only by an AI - he explicitly listed the AI as the sole author - and Dr Thaler himself wanted to claim copyright over it. Dr Thaler explicitly claimed he had not authored it.
From the appeal judgement:
In this case, a computer scientist attributes authorship of an artwork to the operation of software. Dr. Stephen Thaler created a generative artificial intelligence named the “Creativity Machine.” The Creativity Machine made a picturethat Dr. Thaler titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” Dr. Thaler submitted a copyright registration application for “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” to the United States Copyright Office. On the application, Dr. Thaler listed the Creativity Machine as the work’s sole author and himself as just the work’s owner.
Furthermore, if a specification was partially written by AI, then even if a paragraph were written entirely autonomously (tricky!) then the aggregate whole would be copyrightable by the person assembling it, since a derived work of an uncopyrightable work is still copyrightable.
- §4 mandates that the XEP carries certain legal notices, including a
copyright notice. As the XSF does not own any copyright on the AI
generated content (because it can't have copyright), such copyright
notice would be invalid.
That seems predicated on the prior assertions, so I would argue that it's false.
- §4 also mandates that the XEP itself carries a notice that the XEP
was contributed in full conformance with the IPR policy.
Likewise.
To me this means that AI generated content that is not primarily
created by a human does not and can not comply with the IPR policy and
thus can neither be submitted by the author nor accepted by the XSF.
I think you've misread the case law, which doesn't say "primarily created by a human", but deals entirely with the opposite extreme, "without human creative input".
If we wanted to allow submission of AI generated XEPs, it would be a
board subject to adjust the IPR policy accordingly.
I don't think it would.
The IPR policy requires, as you note, copyright assignment, but in so doing it also requires that the contributor assert that they have the copyright to assign. We already have some (much!) more interesting cases, such as if I write and contribute a ProtoXEP, then under UK Law if I have done so in the course of my employment, the copyright rests with my employer and not me.
Marvin
On Mon, 2026-05-11 at 09:50 +0200, Goffi wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I would like to bring a discussion on AI policy. We can't really
> ignore
> anymore that modern models have become very capable, and I suspect
> that they
> are used for spec authoring.
>
> This raises, I believe, copyright issues: if someone use AI to redact
> a whole
> section of a spec, how can we be sure that it's not an existing specs
> for some
> other place, possibly under copyright, that is copied or paraphrased?
> How can
> an author guarantee that it's original work (hint: they can't)?
>
> I think that there are 3 distinct uses:
>
> 1. As a light formatting/checking help, for instance to generate a
> table from
> a human written section, to correct the formulation of a sentence, or
> to draft
> an example. This is notably useful for non native English speakers.
>
> 2. As a help to search existing state of art on some feature, or any
> kind of
> data, without writing anything in a protoXEP.
>
> 3. As a way to generate whole sections.
>
> Instinctively, and If we put aside ethical and ecological concerns
> about LLMs,
> I think that 1. and 2. are OK, and 3. should be forbidden. And in all
> cases,
> it should be disclosed.
>
> I would like your feedback on this matter, in particular people with
> legal
> knowledge.
>
> I would like to avoid a flamewar, I know that this topic is sensitive
> and there
> opinions are highly divided, please express your opinion calmly. The
> fact is,
> we can't ignore this anymore.
>
> Should this be discussed with board or council?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Goffi
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org