Comment by luma
3 years ago
If it were a derivative work[1] (and sufficiently transformational) then it's allowed under current copyright law and might not be the slam dunk ruling you were hoping for.
3 years ago
If it were a derivative work[1] (and sufficiently transformational) then it's allowed under current copyright law and might not be the slam dunk ruling you were hoping for.
"sufficiently transformational" is carrying a lot of water here. At minimum it would cloud the issue and might expose anyone using AI to lawsuits where they'd potentially have to defend each generated image.
Sufficiently transformational only applies to copyrightability, but AI works are not copyrightable under current US law, so it's a non-issue.
Oh, interesting, I didn't realize that's how it worked. Thanks for the additional context around this. Guess it's not as upending as I thought it could be.
Not if it is AI generated. So far only humans can be original enough to warrant copyrights, at least in the US .
BTW, the right to prepare derivative works belongs to the copyright holder of the reference work.
I doubt that many AI works are in fact derivative works. Sure, some bear enough similarity, but a gross majority likely doesn't.