Are you a copyright expert? This sounds counter realistic.
By the same vein of thought I could claim that Google is a tool and by typing in different keywords I can make it "output" almost any image. Yet me nor Google could never assert copyright over these images simply because I can type keywords to cause image search to output them, no matter how creative or original keywords I use.
> By the same vein of thought I could claim that Google is a tool and by typing in different keywords I can make it "output" almost any image.
Good question. The difference is regarding the output not the input.
Yes, if you output art, that looks exactly like some other art, then this could be a copyright violation. But that has nothing to do with a computer. Regardless, of if you copy someone else art, by right clicking it, AI generating it, or if a human entirely using their own paint and pencils, completely recreates it, this is all the same.
The computer has nothing to do with it. Neither does the input.
> no matter how creative or original keywords I use.
Exactly. Regardless of the input, the input doesn't matter. That is why AI art is legal. Because the complaints are not about the output, but instead about the input.
Yes, if you input other people's art, but the output is transformative, then that is legal.
Same for if a human does it, or a computer, or anything else. Human input, vs computer input is the same thing, whereas the illegal stuff, is based if the output is infringing, regardless if it is made by a computer or a human.
> By the same vein of thought I could claim that Google is a tool
Yes, it is a tool. And just like any other tool, if it is a computer, or a human, it is the output that is judged. Same as if a human took a picture, or hand copied someone else's art.
A human hand copying art, is just as legal or illegal, as if a computer does it.
> me nor Google could never assert copyright over these images
This is an unrelated topic. This is if the generation of new images, is copyrighted or not. That is different from if you are infringing on someone else's copyright.
I was only talking about "if you are infringing on someone else" topic, not about the generation of new copyright, which yes, requires human input, as according to the "monkey selfie copyright" case.
Are you sure it goes like this, or just conjecturing? Transformativeness is a defense arguing for fair use, i.e. saying that yes, you copied, but because you added so much new, the new work is independent, creative and original in its own right. Does there exist some precedent that the "creativity" part required for successful fair use defense can be externalized to a computer program or other such tool?
By the same vein of thought I could claim that Google is a tool and by typing in different keywords I can make it "output" almost any image. Yet me nor Google could never assert copyright over these images simply because I can type keywords to cause image search to output them, no matter how creative or original keywords I use.