Hacker News Reader

So on your interpretation if I photocopy a book and then sell the photocopies to my friends there is no infringment?

I don't think so, but hey, a photocopier is a machine and it generated the book so should be ok!

That isn't my interpretation, nor did I ever make that statement. That IS infact a valid definition of copyright infringement. The source material is copyrighted and you're making a literal copy of it via photocopier. I don't know how you twisted the logic on that to conclude that would not be infringement.

However, it does also depend what you do with the photocopies, merely photocopying a book and keeping it privately is on par with copying a music CD as a backup. The infringement occurs when you're reusing it as your own, such as selling, publishing, or broadcasting the copyrighted material.

What I stated is that generated art such as images/music/photos that are by a non human cannot be copyrighted. A photocopier isn't generating anything, it's a copy, it's replication and it isn't generating a new thing.

My personal opinion is that AI generated artwork should be treated as equal to fanart when generating copyright influenced material.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com