14

Let's say I have an "infinite computer" that could iterate through and generate 1000x1000px images iterating through all colour combinations (I understand there would be waaaaaay too much data, but let's suppose). Then I go and claim these images as things I've created, and therefore make copyright claims on any image less than 1000x1000px because it's part of one of my images (ostensibly I could make claims against bigger images too, because they likely resemble some image in my library). I even go as far as to write a program to search my database for the images which I've produced which are being "copied" by the offender.

How might a case be made against me?

personjerry
  • 215
  • 2
  • 9
  • 9
    I believe we have an essentially identical question but for all possible 8-note music sequences, and the basic idea is that you can't copyright the productions of a program, just the program itself. I know it's on the SE somewhere, just not sure if it's this site. – zibadawa timmy Dec 22 '20 at 05:47
  • Even aside from the limits on registering mechanically created works, to get useful damages in the US such works would need to be registered, and the fees on 256,000,000 separate works would be prohibitive. – David Siegel Dec 22 '20 at 16:28
  • 4
    @DavidSiegel It's a lot more than 256 million. It's 256^1000000, which is something like 2.79 * 10^2408239 (almost two and a half million digits). That's assuming 256 colors per pixel, which would not be a very good looking image. – Ross Presser Dec 22 '20 at 16:41
  • Related question, from the "would this be copyright infringement?" angle: Would a website that catalogs every possible sequence of letters violate copyright? – Michael Seifert Dec 22 '20 at 16:45
  • 1
    @Ross Quite correct, I wasn't thinking. Anyway, the point remains. For music one could actually create all possible short sections, because the number of possible elements is much smaller, and music is essentially sequential. For images, not so much. – David Siegel Dec 22 '20 at 16:47
  • 1
    This is basically just an extreme version of this old Onion article: Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes. – Darrel Hoffman Dec 22 '20 at 17:02
  • 2
    The premise of this question is flawed. You don't have an infinite computer. You can't even generate all possible 256-bit encryption keys. What chance do you stand to generate all possible 1-megapixel images? – Nayuki Dec 22 '20 at 19:43
  • In Europe if I recall correctly, it requires "creativity" and a "personality". Things made "mechanically/automatically" thus have no copyright. Photography for example can because the photographer makes decisions about where to put the camera, filters, what the picture contains, etc. but the item to copyright needs some sort of "personality". – willeM_ Van Onsem Dec 23 '20 at 18:06

1 Answers1

29

This has been asked about music. A large flaw is that independently creating something that has already been copyrighted is not copyright infringement. Copyright infringement requires copying, requires access to the original.

Law suits regarding music copyright infringement involve demonstrating that the accused composer had heard, or must have heard, the original.

Another flaw is the requirement that a copyright work be creative, implying a human creator but this is not 100% settled - from a WIPO paper -

Creative works qualify for copyright protection if they are original, with most definitions of originality requiring a human author. Most jurisdictions, including Spain and Germany, state that only works created by a human can be protected by copyright.

George White
  • 12,659
  • 2
  • 26
  • 57
  • Do you have a link to the answer about music? – personjerry Dec 22 '20 at 06:15
  • 1
    https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/49032/can-i-copyright-all-creative-works-created-hereafter-by-doing-this – George White Dec 22 '20 at 06:39
  • Really? If I copy a song, let's arbitrarily say "Party Rock Anthem" by LMFAO, they have to prove that I'm not a representative of LMFAO from another parallel universe, and they have to prove I didn't just mash on my keyboard and produce an identical song? – user253751 Dec 22 '20 at 15:53
  • 4
    @user253751 No. Normally the plaintiff merely proves "substantial similarity" and "access", that is that the accused infringer could have copied. If the defendant alleges independent creation, that becomes an issue of fact. There have been cases where copyright infringement was held proved without evidence of access, merely on the degree of similarity. One such was a suit over the song "Rum and CocaCola" in the 1950s if I recall correctly. See My Life in Court by Nizer. – David Siegel Dec 22 '20 at 16:24
  • 1
    @user253751 Sort of. They have to prove that it is possible that you've heard the song before and since that song has been played by radio stations that's enough proof for the courts. They don't have to prove that you listen to radio. The courts will just assume that you are a member of the general public – slebetman Dec 23 '20 at 04:39
  • 3
    @user253751 For example maps sometimes include trap streets for the purpose of proving that the map is copied instead of independently created. – jpa Dec 23 '20 at 09:58
  • I remember a case in my nearest large town, where a magazine had a special edition with reviews of 1,200 restaurants; about 10 of those restaurants didn't exist. Another paper published a review of 12 restaurants shortly after, and they managed to pick 3 of the 10 fake ones. Good question for math.stackexchange: What are the chances of picking 3 or more fake ones? – gnasher729 Dec 23 '20 at 23:21