In the digital age, authorship of computer code is not merely a matter of pride—it is a legal and economic asset. From intellectual property disputes to open-source contributions, the ability to prove that a specific person wrote a specific piece of code can become central to litigation, employment negotiations, and commercial licensing. And yet, while the law recognizes the rights of authors, the process of legally confirming software authorship remains less intuitive than for, say, literary works or visual art.
This article explores how to legally confirm the authorship of program code under U.S. law, examining methods, legal frameworks, and precedents that shape this evolving question. It also addresses practical strategies developers and companies can use to protect their rights before a dispute ever arises.
The Legal Foundations of Software Authorship
In the United States, software is protected under copyright law. Title 17 of the United States Code, which defines the scope of copyright, explicitly recognizes computer programs as literary works. This may seem odd at first—code is functional, not poetic—but it reflects a fundamental truth: writing code is a creative act.
As the U.S. Copyright Office notes in Circular 61: “Copyright protection is available for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression, including computer programs.” The key phrases here — “original works” and “fixed in a tangible medium” — are essential. Authorship begins with originality and is confirmed through fixation.
However, mere fixation is not enough. If multiple people claim to have written the same or similar code, who is the rightful author? And how can that be proven?
The Challenge of Attribution in Collaborative Environments
Modern software development is rarely a solitary endeavor. Whether in open-source communities or corporate environments, code passes through many hands. Git repositories record every change, but that record can be manipulated or misinterpreted. Moreover, collaborative authorship complicates individual claims.
“Software is a fundamentally social medium,” wrote James Grimmelmann, a professor at Cornell Law School. “We need to reframe authorship not as a solitary act but as a conversation over time.” This reframing brings challenges: if code evolves through many iterations, at what point can someone claim authorship, and how do courts parse this dynamic process?
Code Registration and the Role of the Copyright Office
The strongest legal protection for authorship in the U.S. is copyright registration. While copyright exists automatically upon creation, registration with the U.S. Copyright Office confers significant legal advantages, including the ability to sue for infringement and the possibility of statutory damages and attorney’s fees.
Programmers can submit their source code — either the entire codebase or representative portions—for registration. The Copyright Office accepts redacted code to protect sensitive information. As explained in their submission guidelines, “It is not necessary to include confidential portions of the code that are not essential to show authorship.”
This registration creates a prima facie presumption of validity if done within five years of publication. In court, that presumption shifts the burden of proof to the opposing party. It is, in many ways, the most direct route to legally confirming authorship.
Time Stamping and Digital Signatures
Beyond formal registration, developers have long used digital timestamping to establish the date of creation. Tools such as GPG (GNU Privacy Guard) or services like OpenTimestamps allow programmers to cryptographically sign code and anchor that signature in a blockchain or trusted timestamp authority.
While not a replacement for copyright registration, this method provides a layer of evidentiary support. A cryptographic hash that was provably created at a certain time can demonstrate that a file existed in that exact state on that date. This can be invaluable in disputes over who wrote code first.
As Bruce Schneier once noted, “Digital signatures provide the strongest non-repudiation mechanism we have. They don’t prove authorship per se, but they prove control over a private key, which is often good enough to support an authorship claim.”
Employer vs. Individual: The “Work for Hire” Doctrine
Authorship becomes particularly complex when employment relationships are involved. Under the “work made for hire” doctrine in U.S. copyright law, an employer is considered the author of works created by an employee within the scope of employment. This means that even if a programmer writes code, the legal author may be the company.
The distinction between independent contractors and employees becomes critical here. If a freelance developer writes software for a startup, the absence of a clear written agreement can lead to disputes. The law presumes that unless explicitly transferred, copyright remains with the creator.
Legal scholar Pamela Samuelson warns that “Startups often overlook IP assignment until investors demand it. By then, a developer might have left, and the rights could be in limbo.”
To legally confirm authorship—and ensure rights are where they belong — contracts must explicitly assign ownership. Without this clarity, the identity of the legal author may be legally ambiguous, regardless of who wrote the code.
When Disputes Arise: Evidence in Litigation
In copyright disputes involving software, courts examine a variety of evidence to determine authorship. This can include:
- version control logs;
- emails discussing development;
- commit timestamps;
- witness testimony from collaborators or supervisors.
The Federal Rules of Evidence govern the admissibility of such materials. Authenticity, reliability, and the “chain of custody” of files all play a role. Courts often bring in forensic experts to examine metadata and code similarity.
An illustrative case is Engenuity v. Dytran, where competing engineers claimed authorship of a sensor-analysis software. The court relied heavily on dated file headers, emails, and access logs to determine who had created the critical components. The lesson? Evidence management is as important as authorship itself.
Open Source and the Myth of the “Anonymous Genius”
In open-source environments, the question of authorship is especially fluid. Contributors may use pseudonyms, submit patches without legal disclaimers, or fork codebases without attribution. The ethos of the open-source world often downplays legal formalities—but courts do not.
“Just because code is free doesn’t mean it’s free of legal rights,” notes lawyer Heather Meeker, one of the leading authorities on open-source licensing. In fact, many open-source licenses, such as the GPL or MIT license, presume that contributors have legal authority to distribute the code they submit. A lack of clarity about authorship can undermine the entire license.
In some cases, pseudonymous developers have come forward to assert rights retroactively — successfully or not. The courts then face the challenge of linking online identities with real-world individuals. As digital anonymity grows, so does the importance of clear authorship tracking.
Preventive Strategies: How Developers Can Protect Themselves
Given these legal intricacies, what can developers do proactively to confirm authorship?
One powerful strategy is disciplined use of version control platforms like GitHub or GitLab with verified commits and linked identities. By using a GPG key to sign commits, developers can demonstrate a consistent authorship record.
Another is to keep private development journals-dated records of code decisions, ideas, and implementations. These journals can become contemporaneous evidence, which courts often regard as highly persuasive.
Legal documentation also matters. Whether working independently or as part of a team, developers should use Contributor License Agreements (CLAs) or IP assignment forms that specify who owns the code. These documents prevent future disputes and clarify the role of each contributor.
A Cautionary Tale: When Authorship Goes to Court
In Google v. Oracle, one of the most closely watched software cases of the decade, authorship questions played a central role. Oracle claimed that Google had unlawfully used its copyrighted Java APIs. While the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Google on fair use grounds, the case highlighted the complexity of defining ownership and authorship in software.
“It wasn’t just about copying code—it was about copying the structure and spirit of the code,” said Andriy Zhurylo, a founder of Dijust Development. The decision sent a clear message: authorship is more than lines of code — it includes the creative organization of those lines.
A Legal Identity for the Invisible Hand
Software authorship might seem abstract, but it has very real legal consequences. As code becomes central to every industry, the rights of those who write it—whether individuals, teams, or corporations—must be recognized and preserved. Legal systems are evolving to address these realities, but the burden remains on developers to protect their authorship through documentation, registration, and contractual clarity.
“Code is law,” wrote Lawrence Lessig. But without authorship, code becomes a legal orphan-claimed by many, owned by none. To avoid that fate, developers must think like authors, act like record-keepers, and write like lawyers.
