Post #2614212
2026-02-27 01:48 UTC
@mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org
my understanding is that what you said is the case if it is disclosed, or failing that as in this case, can be determined after the fact:
"Zarya of the Dawn: A February 2023 decision that AI-generated illustrations for a graphic novel were not copyrightable, although the human-authored text of the novel and overall selection and arrangement of the images and text in the novel could be copyrighted."
but that if it is not disclosed, and the AI-generated output cannot be separated upon request from that made by humans, then the entire work is at risk:
"Théâtre D’opéra Spatial: A September 2023 decision that an artwork generated by AI and then modified by the applicant could not be copyrighted, since the applicant failed to identify and disclaim the AI-generated portions of the work as required by the AI
Guidance."
Replies (1)
-
@mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org 2026-02-27 01:58
@linear@nya.social right. One could argue that the codebase ca. 2019 is likely untainted, and use that as measuring stick for what changed. The other thing is that you can of course mix uncopyrightable PD stuff into a larger work, if your own stuff is copyrightable. That ofc only works if the former is indeed PD and not encumbered with the rights of the stolen works’ creatives.