Plugin pricing in the AI era

[Tiles]

I don't disagree with the USCO statement itself. I disagree with how broadly you apply it.

The key phrase is "the mere act of writing prompts." My point is that software development is fundamentally different from prompting an image generator. A complex software prompt often contains specifications, algorithms, interfaces, architecture, error handling and behavioural requirements. At some point, the distinction between "mere prompting" and software design becomes blurred.

There is also a very practical aspect. AI-assisted coding is now used throughout the software industry. GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Claude Code, ChatGPT and similar tools have become part of everyday development workflows, from individual developers to large software companies. If your interpretation were correct, it would call into question the copyright status of an enormous amount of modern commercial software.

That alone suggests the issue is far from settled. The question of where "mere prompting" ends and human authorship begins in software development has not yet been clearly answered, especially for complex software projects.

[pekbro]

Then they should copyright the prompts. To me the copyright policy seems to have validity, in many cases.

[antto]

soon: Our Product is made with Patent-pending Prompts (wow! that's good! right?)

[pekbro]

Well the whole situation is stupid, before long there will only be a need for code wranglers, even that could be done with AI.

[stoopicus]

So in my opinion, there is no such clear category as "purely vibe-coded plugins" in the same sense as AI-generated images. The boundary between instruction and authorship is much less clear in software, and that is exactly the point that still needs clarification: it is not settled yet.

yet the USCO has a clarified position:

Prompting is Not Authorship: The Office has explicitly stated that the mere act of writing prompts (like those used in Midjourney or ChatGPT) does not make the user an "author" of the resulting AI output, as the prompt is simply giving instructions to the machine.

..but yes until its tested in some way we can all hold to our opinions.

Given that over the course of the last year, nearly all mid to large sized software companies (i.e. the ones with lawyers and money) have moved to heavily incorporating AI into their workflows, I wouldn't hold my breath for any great liberation of the finished products.

[ghettosynth]

So in my opinion, there is no such clear category as "purely vibe-coded plugins" in the same sense as AI-generated images. The boundary between instruction and authorship is much less clear in software, and that is exactly the point that still needs clarification: it is not settled yet.

yet the USCO has a clarified position:

Prompting is Not Authorship: The Office has explicitly stated that the mere act of writing prompts (like those used in Midjourney or ChatGPT) does not make the user an "author" of the resulting AI output, as the prompt is simply giving instructions to the machine.

..but yes until its tested in some way we can all hold to our opinions.

Given that over the course of the last year, nearly all mid to large sized software companies (i.e. the ones with lawyers and money) have moved to heavily incorporating AI into their workflows, I wouldn't hold my breath for any great liberation of the finished products.

Exactly so.

[TechHaus]

2029 - hoping Lina Khan is back at the FTC and we have a whole cadre of advocates in government to fight for the consumers, workers, and copyright holders that were wronged.