4 ms·
> then while the original image would be copyrightable the resulting derivative output would not. Excellent! I'll put the Inheritance Cycle through a synonymis
by wizzwizz4 3y ago
> then while the original image would be copyrightable the resulting derivative output would not.
Excellent! I'll put the Inheritance Cycle through a synonymiser, and have a copyright-free (if somewhat degraded) version. Take that, Christopher Paolini!
… wait.
What you say might well be correct: the law is often foolish. But I'd imagine the creativity-free derivative work still counts as a derivative work of the original, copyright-eligible work.
- chottocharaii 3y agoYes it'd be a derivative work owned by Paolini. Paolini would have copyright to the derivative work, to the extent that he has rights over derivative material. However, the prompter would have nothing
- wizzwizz4 3y agoIf I write a poem and put it into Stable Diffusion, how is what is produced not a derivative work of my poem? We can argue that it's a derivative work of many other things, but that doesn't make it not a derivative work of the poem. One way it might not be is if Stable Diffusion is seem more like a hash algorithm than a synonymiser. But I don't see why it should, because there's a meaningful correspondence between the input and the output of the system.