Post #3089528

2026-03-04 12:42 UTC

@Foxboron@chaos.social Yeah but that's what I mean: Just because the end result is not copyrightable, does that automatically mean that it can't be a copyright violation? Like, changing the format or medium of something is not a copyrightable work. So, by that logic, if I take a copyrighted MP3 and convert it to AAC and publish that, my AAC is not copyrightable, but it's not a copyright violation to take it and publish it? That's what I mean.

Replies (4)

@Foxboron@chaos.social 2026-03-04 12:52

@scy@chaos.social I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to try and debate what is and isn't a copyright violation.

Open ##3089529
@claudius@darmstadt.social 2026-03-04 12:55

@scy@chaos.social @Foxboron@chaos.social Using code to create a (highly) derivative thing off it without honoring the original license is pretty much the definition of a license violation.

Open ##3089545
@bob_zim@infosec.exchange 2026-03-04 17:13

@scy@chaos.social @Foxboron@chaos.social It is absolutely a violation for the company which built the model to build a model which emits license-restricted code without following the terms of the license. The model doesn’t commit the violation any more than a photocopier does, of course. The emitted code cannot be copyrighted at all, but if it emitted the code in a way which meets the terms of the license, the code would be covered by the original license.

Open ##3089546
@jens@social.finkhaeuser.de 2026-03-04 19:48

@scy@chaos.social @Foxboron@chaos.social It's a bit complicated, actually. IANAL, but this is what I understand: - The music notation is copyrightable, individual notes are not. A sequence of notes is debatable, and it depends highly on recognizability AFAIK. - A music recording is copyrightable. Playing that music in a distinctly different arrangement, less of an issue. - Arguably, a change in digital format is either still the same recording, or sufficiently indistinguishable from it. - Copyright has an ancient...

Open ##3089547