Damus
Arvīds Kokins · 22w
nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpqhykucplphuhelaxutcw4jw3vuu7gcg42czhqmk7jhchs8vdga4fschugpy Perfect memorization is also irrelevant - lossy compression is also a thing, doesn't s...
Cory Doctorow profile picture
@nprofile1q...

> Ultimately though what matters for infringement is whether the original work was substantially used to produce the new work (regardless of the exact process) - and clearly that's the case.

This is completely incorrect.

You could cut a picture into a billion pixels and reconstitute them as a completely different picture without infringing anyone's copyright.

Copyright has nothing to do with whether the constituent components came from a copyrighted work. That's just completely wrong
2
Cory Doctorow · 22w
nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpq2spdmtqs75xq7mje3am8jq0nr33rkclkyzxm8r22l7w92f0zqsqsdfepsg Internationally, the limitations and exceptions to copyright are cabined by the Berne "three step" test which does not mention whether the constituent parts are drawn from a copyrighted ...
Arvīds Kokins · 22w
nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpqhykucplphuhelaxutcw4jw3vuu7gcg42czhqmk7jhchs8vdga4fschugpy In that case you can argue that the particular work was not substantially used in the end result, if all you needed was a pile of pixels (or a palette) without their positional associati...