I don’t think the tool by which a derivative work is created matters. The author should not distribute, remix, re-work, adapt, release, perform or synchronise i

I don’t think the tool by which a derivative work is created matters. The author should not distribute, remix, re-work, adapt, release, perform or synchronise it if they do not have the rights. This is already the case for all other technologies and tools. For example, if you rewrite a popular book in a word processor from scratch, it is not the responsibility of your word processor to not let you do it. Or the government to regulate word processors so that they are incapable of doing it. It is your responsibility to not distribute what you made. If you record your screen watching a movie and distribute it, the accountability for this falls on you, not the tool made for screen recording. And if you use generative AI to produce trademarked or copyrighted works, you should be accountable, not AI. Generative AI will always be able to produce copyrighted works if steered enough. Even if it wasn’t trained directly on them. A very simple experiment proves it - you can paste copyrighted material into a ChatGPT prompt and ask it to repeat it. Or you can describe a copyrighted work really well for MidJourney and it will produce results with high likeness. This does not require that the models be trained on copyrighted works. Besides, copyright infringement isn’t nearly the worst crime AI can be used in. Serious impersonation, forgeries and fraud are also made easier with AI. Why is copyright different? It should all be treated the same - the user should be held accountable for their actions. Not the tool or the tool’s makers.