DOE vs. Github: Copilot Outputs Copyrighted Code Verbatim

VII. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

F. Copilot Reproduces the Code of the Named Plaintiffs Without Attribution

1. Example: Copilot Outputs the Code of Doe 2 Essentially Verbatim

100. The first example demonstrates Copilot suggesting an essentially verbatim copy of code written by Doe 2.

101. (Redacted) subject to the GNU General Public License v3.0. (Redacted)

102. When Copilot is prompted the first few lines of Doe 2’s code:

(Redacted)

Copilot suggests the following:

(Redacted)

103. This suggestion from Copilot is identical to Doe 2’s code, except that (redacted) These differences in the code are cosmetic and the code is functionally equivalent; otherwise, this is a verbatim copy. Doe 2’s particular arrangement and sequencing seen in his code is distinctive expression found only in one location on GitHub: (redacted)

104. Because the Copilot suggestion is a nearly verbatim reproduction of Doe 2’s unique code, it follows that Copilot copied Doe 2’s code. Copilot therefore needed to adhere to the requirements of Doe 2’s license (GNU General Public License v3.0) for that code, including providing attribution. It does not. Copilot also did not reproduce Doe 2’s license.