3 ms·

Derivative works are not generally allowed in many jurisdictions. Try releasing a cover song without clearing it first etc. Even using a recognizable sample wil

Derivative works are not generally allowed in many jurisdictions. Try releasing a cover song without clearing it first etc. Even using a recognizable sample will bite you Derivative works are tolerated in some cases like some manga or fanfics but it is a gray area and whenever the author or publisher wants to pursue it it is their full right to do it. Many do pursue it (You can get inspired by something, and this is where some arguments can happen if you get inspired too mmmm literally, but no one will say with a straight face that inspiration is a thing that happens to software)

stevenAthompson 1y ago
You are absolutely right. I should have phrased that differently. Derivative work is a legal term, but I misused it above. I should have either used another term or been clearer. If the work is "derivative" in the legal sense it is copyrighted, and you may not create derivative works without the copyright holders permission. What I should have said is that simply being inspired by a work or copying unprotectable elements (like facts or ideas) does not create a derivative work. For example, if ChatGPT were to generate Star Wars, except with Dookies instead of Wookies, that might be illegal. If it were to learn what a spaceship is from Star Wars and then create something substantially new it would not. The key is is that it must not be substantially similar to the original. You must add enough value that it becomes something new, not just rehash the original.
- throwaway290 1y ago
  Learning is like inspiration, it's something humans do. Don't get fooled by "learning" in "machine learning", it doesn't mean machine becomes like human in legal sense...
moregrist 1y ago
> Try releasing a cover song without clearing it first etc. Even using a recognizable sample will bite you So… it’s complicated. This is one of the weird areas where music copyright and other copyright seem to differ in the US. In the US the situation is complex and there are a lot of weird special interests [0], but generally a composer/author of a song has the right to decide who first records and releases the song, but after the first recording covers require a mechanical license, which is compulsory (ie: the author cannot object). In music there are _a lot_ of special cases and different rights are decided with different kinds of licenses, some of which are compulsory. I think it’s an area that doesn’t make for good analogies with copyright in other media. 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license
- throwaway290 1y ago
  > covers require a mechanical license, which is compulsory Which is compulsory for the performer too. A derivative work like cover is sort of acceptable when it's performed by a person live for some audience (grey area but twitch sort of allows it. with a bunch of rules). As soon as you want to publish it you MUST have a license. And chatbot is a derivative work totally not performed live by a person for some audience I saw great tracks that got taken down from all legal channels because they featured a sample from another song. Sometimes they remained up but mostly they were taken down. It is fully original publisher's discretion...

stevenAthompson 1y ago

You are absolutely right. I should have phrased that differently. Derivative work is a legal term, but I misused it above. I should have either used another term or been clearer. If the work is "derivative" in the legal sense it is copyrighted, and you may not create derivative works without the copyright holders permission. What I should have said is that simply being inspired by a work or copying unprotectable elements (like facts or ideas) does not create a derivative work. For example, if ChatGPT were to generate Star Wars, except with Dookies instead of Wookies, that might be illegal. If it were to learn what a spaceship is from Star Wars and then create something substantially new it would not. The key is is that it must not be substantially similar to the original. You must add enough value that it becomes something new, not just rehash the original.

throwaway290 1y ago
Learning is like inspiration, it's something humans do. Don't get fooled by "learning" in "machine learning", it doesn't mean machine becomes like human in legal sense...

moregrist 1y ago

> Try releasing a cover song without clearing it first etc. Even using a recognizable sample will bite you So… it’s complicated. This is one of the weird areas where music copyright and other copyright seem to differ in the US. In the US the situation is complex and there are a lot of weird special interests [0], but generally a composer/author of a song has the right to decide who first records and releases the song, but after the first recording covers require a mechanical license, which is compulsory (ie: the author cannot object). In music there are _a lot_ of special cases and different rights are decided with different kinds of licenses, some of which are compulsory. I think it’s an area that doesn’t make for good analogies with copyright in other media. 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license

throwaway290 1y ago
> covers require a mechanical license, which is compulsory Which is compulsory for the performer too. A derivative work like cover is sort of acceptable when it's performed by a person live for some audience (grey area but twitch sort of allows it. with a bunch of rules). As soon as you want to publish it you MUST have a license. And chatbot is a derivative work totally not performed live by a person for some audience I saw great tracks that got taken down from all legal channels because they featured a sample from another song. Sometimes they remained up but mostly they were taken down. It is fully original publisher's discretion...