> The reason is simply a weird copyright paradox could form when a work is rendered on someone else's computer
Why? Copyright protects creativity, not hardware ownership. J.K. Rowling doesn't print her books in her apartment, either.
Why? Copyright protects creativity, not hardware ownership. J.K. Rowling doesn't print her books in her apartment, either.
i.e. if Rowling wrote some description about a bigoted neglected single mom striking it rich, and someone else actually wrote the work... than ownership is not guaranteed without legal assignment of rights to said work (depends on the location in the world). Thus, a publisher may not pay the muse unless under legal obligation of rights transfer, and having similar works further complicate exactly who owns the copyrights.
When you publish media or games, than the providence of assets/compositions become extremely important in a commercial setting.
I didn't make the rules, but do hire project artists all the time. The paperwork involved ends up ridiculously complicated, and requires specialized lawyers. This is why we avoid "AI" content, cloud based GPU service, and any vendor ignorant enough to force the issue. =3
Rendering an image is not "creating a work“ in the copyright sense. There may be all kinds of other legal quagmires, implicit contracts etc., but copyright is not one of them.
> someone else actually wrote the work
So you throw in a totally different situation? If the Blender scene has been modelled by someone else, then yes, that someone owns the copyright. But not because I let someone else render the completed scene.
'Rendering an image is not "creating a work“ in the copyright sense.'
Perhaps your super awesome precedent case against BBC, Sony, and or Disney will end in your favor. It is not 0% chance, but pretty close from what the IP firms have advised.
'If the Blender scene has been modelled by someone else, then yes, that someone owns the copyright'
That is just not true in most places, and including assets/compositions from libraries you "found" does not assign copyrights to use said work. Even if some con artist on the Unity store sold you "rights", there is no guarantee it was theirs to assign.
Please consider talking with an IP lawyer in your jurisdiction, as your ludicrous notions of ownership could end up a liability. lol Best of luck =3
You have no clue at all. Goodbye!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhgYMH6n004
You were warned this area gets complicated, there are some scenarios that get truly bizarre. Get some popcorn, and best of luck =3
> Who owns the copyright of the images generated?
> SheepIt Render Farm does not lay any claim to generated images, it only acts as a tool to provide compute power to owners of the project. The owner of the project will have all rights reserved to them; As long as the claimant is the true rights holder of all assets used, and complies with governed free use laws, as well as potential rights holder permissions.
Otherwise I guess GitHub owns the copyright on all software artifacts build on their CI systems. Obviously not how copyright works, like at all.
Good question, someone should get the IP lawyers to go over the EULA of both git and the login email identity service providers. However, I would assume for most FOSS licensed projects it is likely a moot argument. Microsoft probably wouldn't do anything evil...
Best of luck, =)
Best of luck =3