No, AI does not create new derivative works. Copyright law is very clear that the thing that is copyrightable is that modicum of creativity, reduced to a tangible medium of expression, that society must encourage and protect.
Derivative works need even more creativity than original orcs because it has to be so newly creative as to be a different work, even though the original may still be recognizable.
An AI system does not have creativity. At best, it could mimic someone who is creative, but it could never have creativity on its own. It is generative, not creative.
It’s like that monkey that took a nice picture, but the picture was not copyrightable because the person seeking to enforce the copyright didn’t create the work. It’s creativity that the Constitution seeks to encourage by the copyright clause.
The AI doesn’t need creativity because the “A” in “AI” stands for “artificial,” not “autonomous.” It’s a tool. Someone is controlling the output by setting the input parameters.
Many of those those reaction videos on YouTube are actually infringing on copyright. Just that the videos they’re reacting to aren’t made by people with deep enough pockets to sue them so they get away with it.
I think they are considered derivative, and are not protected. Not that he wasn’t creative, just that his work wasn’t so creative to be independently copyrightable. I’m a little rusty on my IP law.
No, AI does not create new derivative works. Copyright law is very clear that the thing that is copyrightable is that modicum of creativity, reduced to a tangible medium of expression, that society must encourage and protect.
Derivative works need even more creativity than original orcs because it has to be so newly creative as to be a different work, even though the original may still be recognizable.
An AI system does not have creativity. At best, it could mimic someone who is creative, but it could never have creativity on its own. It is generative, not creative.
It’s like that monkey that took a nice picture, but the picture was not copyrightable because the person seeking to enforce the copyright didn’t create the work. It’s creativity that the Constitution seeks to encourage by the copyright clause.
The AI doesn’t need creativity because the “A” in “AI” stands for “artificial,” not “autonomous.” It’s a tool. Someone is controlling the output by setting the input parameters.
Well said. “Art launderers” is the best ai descriptor I’ve come across so far.
You can make new derivative work without being creative. Just look at all the YouTubers copying each other.
Many of those those reaction videos on YouTube are actually infringing on copyright. Just that the videos they’re reacting to aren’t made by people with deep enough pockets to sue them so they get away with it.
Your definition implies Andy Warhol wasn’t creative.
I think they are considered derivative, and are not protected. Not that he wasn’t creative, just that his work wasn’t so creative to be independently copyrightable. I’m a little rusty on my IP law.