Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="OptionalRule" data-source="post: 9463216" data-attributes="member: 6680">You're essentially asking if you can create a copyrightable work from an AI-generated source by transforming it sufficiently. The honest answer is: nobody knows for certain. Here's what we do know:<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">AI-created works alone cannot be copyrighted.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">You can claim ownership over a work if you've transformed it enough.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Whether courts will consider AI-sourced, human-transformed works as copyrightable is currently untested. Nobody knows if that chocolate goes with that peanutbutter.</li>
</ol>Simple polishing likely wouldn't be enough. You'd need to significantly transform the work. This concept is similar to the argument behind &quot;reaction&quot; videos on YouTube, which claim fair use as transformative works.It's important to distinguish between copyright and trademark. Trademark law is less clear-cut. For example, while the Steamboat Willie version of Mickey Mouse is now in the public domain, Disney still holds trademarks and copyrights on later iterations of Mickey.From my experience co-owning a publishing company, there's a saying: &quot;there is no copyright, only legal rulings.&quot; This is somewhat accurate. In practice, most copyright issues are ignored unless money is involved, at which point lawsuits often follow.The threshold for &quot;transformative enough&quot; in this context is unclear and would likely require significant legal precedent to establish. Until then, it remains a gray area in copyright law.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="OptionalRule, post: 9463216, member: 6680"] You're essentially asking if you can create a copyrightable work from an AI-generated source by transforming it sufficiently. The honest answer is: nobody knows for certain. Here's what we do know: [LIST=1] [*]AI-created works alone cannot be copyrighted. [*]You can claim ownership over a work if you've transformed it enough. [*]Whether courts will consider AI-sourced, human-transformed works as copyrightable is currently untested. Nobody knows if that chocolate goes with that peanutbutter. [/LIST] Simple polishing likely wouldn't be enough. You'd need to significantly transform the work. This concept is similar to the argument behind "reaction" videos on YouTube, which claim fair use as transformative works. It's important to distinguish between copyright and trademark. Trademark law is less clear-cut. For example, while the Steamboat Willie version of Mickey Mouse is now in the public domain, Disney still holds trademarks and copyrights on later iterations of Mickey. From my experience co-owning a publishing company, there's a saying: "there is no copyright, only legal rulings." This is somewhat accurate. In practice, most copyright issues are ignored unless money is involved, at which point lawsuits often follow. The threshold for "transformative enough" in this context is unclear and would likely require significant legal precedent to establish. Until then, it remains a gray area in copyright law. [/QUOTE]

Verification