[phpisthebest]

None of which are copyrightable and infact has been the subject of DMCA abuse like when a Movie uses NASA footage and claims copyright on YouTube videos with the same footage.

Copyright is a complex subject, and not as vast as many believe, at the same time ironically it is more vast than i believe it should be. copyright should be much more limiting than it is. Which is at odds with people that believe copyright should be maximized.

Keeping in mind commercial success of a work, author or company is not why copyright exists. For the US, the only reason copyright can exist in our framework of law (i.e the constitution) is for the promotion of the useful sciences. No other purpose for copyright would be constitutional under the US Constitution

[gnz11]

Copyright doesn’t exist solely for the “promotion of useful sciences”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

[phpisthebest]

Citing Wikipedia you already failed..

That is a General Article about Copyright world wide, I Specifically stated US Copyright, which is Authorized by Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution[1], implicitly for the promotion of the useful sciences. That is where congress derives its power to pass copyright laws, and to enforce copyright on the people of the United States. No other purpose is authorized by the US Constitution

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intellectual_property_clause

[vel0city]

Missed the edit window, but thinking about this more:

> Keeping in mind commercial success of a work, author or company is not why copyright exists.

Lets take a look at the clause again:

> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

Lets go ahead and skip over the fact you're consistently ignoring "useful arts" part as well and keep going.

What exclusive rights do you think they're talking about here? Do you really think they didn't mean the economic rights related to their writings and discoveries? How do you imagine this would "promote" the sciences if not by allowing the creators to share their works and ideas while still retaining economic benefits of their labor?

Reading between the lines, the whole point of IP is to help protect the potential commercial success of sharing your ideas. It doesn't guarantee the idea will actually be a commercial success, but it does give them the exclusive right to the commercial success for a limited time.

[vel0city]

You missed "and useful arts" in both of your comments. That's a key addition that you keep ommitting.

It is not just for sciences.

[hn_acker]

Reminder: don't take the terms "Science" and "useful Arts" to mean today's understanding of them.

> [the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

...

> Some terms in the clause are used in archaic meanings, potentially confusing modern readers. For example, "useful Arts" does not refer to artistic endeavors, but rather to the work of artisans, people skilled in a manufacturing craft; "Sciences" refers not only to fields of modern scientific inquiry but rather to all knowledge.

"Science" refers to knowledge, and conveying that knowledge entails creative expression. Copyright covers expression of knowledge; facts and ideas themselves are not copyrightable. "useful Arts" refers to inventions. Patents cover useful inventions and novel implementations of practical ideas, not creative expression and not unimplemented ideas. (Which is one reason most software patents shouldn't have been granted.) Congress's authority to make copyright law and patent law is conditional on promoting the spread and advancement of knowledge, creativity, and inventions in the long term. The means of achieving that end is short-term restrictions on how people can use others' creative works and useful inventions.

But copyright does not prohibit mere usage of someone else's creative works [2]:

> To win a claim of copyright infringement in civil or criminal court, a plaintiff must show he or she owns a valid copyright, the defendant actually copied the work, and the level of copying amounts to misappropriation.

If the output of an AI model is not similar to any creative work in the training set, then the output cannot infringe on copyright. And even where the training set contains illegally obtained materials, the act of illegally obtaining those materials has nothing to do with including legally obtained materials in the training set.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity#Substan...