Any line of code, probably not. But a program as a whole, sure.
Otherwise I think you blow up music copyrights too, since a single note isn’t copyrightable and a song is just a bunch of individual notes.
At some point, choosing, ordering, and organizing a collection of non-copyrightable quanta produces a copyrightable work. And I think it had to be that way.
database works are more commonly subject to rights _similar_ to copyright, but often a class of work in its own right.
Databases can be copyrightable. Not all are, but to the extent IP protection extends to databases it will virtually always be copyright, with maybe an occasional trade secret (which is almost the opposite of copyright)
What you're suggesting, about a minimal work, is litigated endlessly with respect to music copyrights (since a lot of pop music is very similar, arguments about plagiarism get crazy), but is part of the law already.
I agree it’s a complex are with no easy answer. But I really think that software, like words and notes and numbers, scales from the generic and unprotectable to the highly creative and protectable. I guess I’m saying we shouldn’t invalidate copyright based on the medium being software, any more than we would for the medium being audio.
Say you had a book that listed the price of eggs over 100 years. You introduced each chapter, perhaps describing the egg market at the time, etc.
The book is copyrightable though lists of egg prices aren’t. Maps are another fun case for copyright.
vs.
"Original work of authorship" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St... (in particular the comparison section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St... )
The court case that set this difference down was Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....
Circling back around to creative works, the process of making art is also one of curation, as had been amply demonstrated over 100 years ago by the Readymades of Marcel Duchamp.[1]
The curation involved in prompt selection and selection of which AI-generated works/images to use should therefore be just as copyrightable as databases, if all that copyright demands is curation.
[1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp
His other works include curated noises such as buzzing blenders, falling objects, and street traffic. The only art is the act of convincing someone these things are art or deserving of copyright.
It just needs to said that he wasn't a merely a "gimmick" man.
His writing is apparently very good although I've never delved deep. His work was motivated by his interest in Zen and similar topics rather than any kind of high-concept modernism.
Good art typically stands on it's own and connects with people without the need to explain why it's significant. Salvador Dali's work is visually interesting even if you have no clue what any of it means. If I see a bunch of objects scattered around a room it looks like clutter. If I see a bunch of paint splattered to a canvas if looks like a mess. If someone has to explain why these things are "art" is it the art that's compelling or their argument? The exception to that would be optical illusions.
Requiring a declaration of what parts are and are not copyrightable for software would be a major shift in policy and require major changes in software methodology. It’s not a big jump to think that any output of AI of software code output would not be copyrightable, regardless of original origin.
Another example of “Software wants to be free.”