Copyrightability of LLM-generated code: Can we license “vibe code” into Free Software?
"...If a piece of software is not copyrightable, that software has no rights reserved and is in the public domain. This also means that no one has the rights to apply any kind of license terms to that software, including copyleft license terms that work to maintain the Four Freedoms in any downstream distributions and derivatives of that software...
While there is a current lack of harmonised, specific legislation throughout all member states on the copyrightability of LLM-generated works, there are nonetheless strong indications that copyright does not apply to purely LLM-generated works within the EU, and only a natural person can be considered an author...
Using prompts alone is insufficient for copyright
Advocates for human authorship of LLM-generated work often argue that the required human creativity for the output exists in prompts, comparing prompting to commissioning a creative work, or providing an artist with instructions. This opinion is however not generally reflected in case law and the general principles of copyright law, where prompts are unable to provide sufficient human control to allow users of an AI tool to be recognised as authors of the resulting output. Just like the detailed instructions given by the non-profit to the sculptor in CCNV, prompts can be seen to merely be instructions that convey ideas, which are not covered by copyright law..."
https://fsfe.org/news/2026/news-20260825-01.html
"...If a piece of software is not copyrightable, that software has no rights reserved and is in the public domain. This also means that no one has the rights to apply any kind of license terms to that software, including copyleft license terms that work to maintain the Four Freedoms in any downstream distributions and derivatives of that software...
While there is a current lack of harmonised, specific legislation throughout all member states on the copyrightability of LLM-generated works, there are nonetheless strong indications that copyright does not apply to purely LLM-generated works within the EU, and only a natural person can be considered an author...
Using prompts alone is insufficient for copyright
Advocates for human authorship of LLM-generated work often argue that the required human creativity for the output exists in prompts, comparing prompting to commissioning a creative work, or providing an artist with instructions. This opinion is however not generally reflected in case law and the general principles of copyright law, where prompts are unable to provide sufficient human control to allow users of an AI tool to be recognised as authors of the resulting output. Just like the detailed instructions given by the non-profit to the sculptor in CCNV, prompts can be seen to merely be instructions that convey ideas, which are not covered by copyright law..."
https://fsfe.org/news/2026/news-20260825-01.html
FSFE - Free Software Foundation EuropeCopyrightability of LLM-generated code: Can we license “vibe code” into Free Software? - FSFEThe use of large language models (“LLMs”) has exploded in recent years, including in the generation of source code. But even as their usage gains popularit...