[juris]

I think it does though if you try to sell it... I mean Disney does occasionally go after artists selling baby yoda plushies that have been cropping up all over Etsy. Part of that is how busted copyright claims systems are, but they suuurely have some legal right to the likeness of yoda himself, especially in plushie context. Surely?

[jy1]

Just because Disney can stop you from commercializing something does not mean they own the copyright of the entire work.

Suppose you make a Yoda painting. You do not own the rights of _Yoda_, but Disney does not own rights of your painting, either. If you make a painting of Yoda, Disney can't commercialize and sell it either.

In this case, Disney owns some rights, and you the artist have rights. But it doesn't mean Disney "owns the copyright" to your work. They cannot publish/commercialize your exact Yoda painting and put it on t-shirts to sell.

[jy1]

An analogy for software engineers:

Scenario: The XYZ Algorithm

Let's say you are a software developer working on an extensive library that deals with data processing. You come across a small, but particularly efficient algorithm developed by Company A, which they've shared on their blog. This algorithm, called the XYZ Algorithm, is explicitly mentioned to be freely usable but retains the copyright to Company A.

You decide to use this XYZ Algorithm as a component within your larger library. You integrate it as-is, without modifying the original code of the XYZ Algorithm.

Implications:

Rights on the XYZ Algorithm: Even though you've integrated the XYZ Algorithm into your library, Company A retains the copyright on that specific algorithm. If they've specified particular licensing terms or conditions for use (like attribution), you'd have to abide by them.

Rights on the Entire Library: The rest of your library, which you developed independently, remains your intellectual property. Company A's copyright doesn't extend to the whole library, just the specific portion that constitutes the XYZ Algorithm.

Distribution and Licensing: If you decide to distribute or sell your library:

You'd have to ensure you comply with any licensing terms or conditions attached to the XYZ Algorithm. For the parts of the library you own, you can choose any licensing model you like.

Just because Company A can stop you from commercializing your entire Library, does not mean they own rights to your entire Library.

[ClumsyPilot]

That's of limited use, because here algorithm is a subset of a library

But a painting of Yoda is a different Depiction of the same character. There are no subsets. It's the general image and idea of the character that is Disney's property.

[jy1]

Yes there is of course a subset.

There is no 100% painting of Yoda, with exception of perfectly copying an existing work.

You can a take a photo of Yoda at Disneyland. Disney still cant take your photo and slap it on t-shirts to sell without your permission. (It doesnt mean you can either)

[juris]

Hm; maybe you are right in that I am conflating 'copyright' and 'the ability to commercialize'. So to follow up, I'm under the impression that the copyright of a character enables companies to create and sell licenses to third parties to use the likeness of the character under terms limited by the license, and that any commercial usage outside of that paradigm is a copyright violation.

EG. it's 1998 and the Pokemon Company licenses MadCatz (defunct) to create Pokemon themed N64 controllers. Such a license is limited to N64 controllers; let's say under the terms of the license, MadCatz can't turn around and make a Pokemon themed bag in the style of ugh, Rat Fink. MadCatz can't make N64 controllers, and the Pokemon Company knows this, and really doesn't want them botching up their brand with horrific art, too. Copyright protects brand.

Now legally speaking, I can put a depiction of pikachu on a powerpoint slide in a school report and call it 'fair use'. But the second I sell that art on a bag (regardless of whether I put the words Pokemon on it), I've violated copyright laws, because the purchaser of my bag has deprived our poor Pokemon company of potential income. Womp-womp. Dumb as it is for Nintendo to come after me (as they go after the makers of Pokemon rom hacks, et al), it makes some sense, depending on how I scale up.

Fast forward to 2026 and now we have GPT-8 (flip it sideways for infinity, as we have reached the Singularity by this time). Pokemon is old as the hills and is celebrating its 30th anniversary (Jesus!). I use an AI with the prompt "fat yellow thunder mouse", and it generates a "pikachu but better", uncannily like the iconic character (because it's the only yellow thunder mouse anyone ever draws) but cute in all the ways that our AI knows how to get to humans, and I decide to coin it in an NFT and put it up for sale. Let's say the Pokemon Company is particularly litigious in its old age and is a veritable Disney. Or hell, let's suppose Disney bought the Pokemon Company (and now Misty is a Disney princess, just like Leia).

Given that: I own the NFT (in the sense of your software library example), no-one owns the art (AI-generated), Pokemon owns the brand and the concept of a Pikachu, and this particular depiction is recognized to be pikachu "but kinda better", we live in one of these worlds:

1. Disney is owed money from the proceeds, and can request cease of production / legal remedy 2. It is not owed anything, as the art itself was generated from an AI.

Which makes more sense?