> In March 2023, the Office provided public guidance on registration of works created by a generative-AI system. The guidance explained that, in considering an application for registration, the Office will ask “whether the ‘work’ is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.”

You are going to have to prove that things Claude stamps as co-authored are not the work of an "assisting instrument". It's certainly true that some vibe-coded one-shot thing might not apply.

I would also note that the applicant applying for copyright in your linked case explicitly refused guidance and advice from the examiner. That could well be because the creation of that specific work was not shaped much by that artist's efforts.

I wouldn't read too much into that when discussing a GitHub repo. It really will depend on how the user is using Claude and their willingness to demonstrate which parts they contributed themselves. You need to remember that copyright extends to plays and other works of performance. Everything the copyright office is saying in your linked ruling suggests that an AI-implementation of a human-design is copyrightable.