It’s all made from our data, anyway, so it should be ours to use as we want

  • FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    17 hours ago

    You’ve got your definition of “derivative work” wrong. It does indeed need to contain copyrightable elements of another work for it to be a derivative work.

    If I took a copy of Harry Potter, reduced it to a fine slurry, and then made a paper mache sculpture out of it, that’s not a derivative work. None of the copyrightable elements of the book survived.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      Because that would be sufficiently transformative, and passes all the fair use tests with flying colors.

      If you cut up the book into paragraphs, sentences, and phrases, and rearranged them to make and sell your own books, then you are likely to fail each of the four tests.

      But even if you manage to cut those pieces up so fine that you can’t necessarily tell where they come from in the source material, there is enough contained in the output that it is clearly drawing directly on source material.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        14 hours ago

        If you cut up the book into paragraphs, sentences, and phrases, and rearranged them to make and sell your own books, then you are likely to fail each of the four tests.

        Ah, the “collage machine” description of how generative AI supposedly works.

        It doesn’t.

        But even if you manage to cut those pieces up so fine that you can’t necessarily tell where they come from in the source material, there is enough contained in the output that it is clearly drawing directly on source material.

        If you can’t tell where they “came from” then you can’t prove that they’re copied. If you can’t prove they’re copied you can’t win a copyright lawsuit in a court of law.