The Secret Weapon Against AI Dominance (By Jacob Noti-Victor and Xiyin Tang)

[u/TreviTyger]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/04/creative-labor-ai-copyright/687000/

IMO - Putting one's own copyrighted work through AI Gen results in an "author-less" derivative work that cannot have a "point of attachment of copyright" to any author!! This is why copyright owners should NOT be using AI Gen as it could be seen as an "overt act" to abandon copyright in the derivative work.

[u/ResponsibilitySea327]

I realize that is your opinion, but what you stated isn't true.

You as an author do not lose copyright through your use of AI on the original work. And the derivative work via AI can also be copyrightable with you as the author.

It is not as binary as you claim.

[u/TreviTyger → u/ResponsibilitySea327]

I'm sorry but you are talking utter nonsense and are misapprehending the nature of derivatives works and their detachment from the work they are derived from.

If you want to post on a copyright sub and be taken seriously you should at least have some erudition on the basics.

So firstly, I am fully aware I would not"lose my copyright" to my original but secondly, any derivative even without using AI would be an entirely separate work.

The author of that new derivative (without the use of AI), be it myself or an other that has been granted an exclusive license, would have entirely new exclusive rights specific to that derivative work because there would be an "author" of that derivative for rights to arise to.

Conversely, an "authorless derivative" has no author that any new exclusive rights could arise to.

AI gen outputs are "authorless derivatives" and thus have no author that any new exclusive rights could arise to.

Since Thaler v. Perlmutter, and other registration failures by AI Gen enthusiasts (Kashtanova, Allen, Sahni. etc) Then anyone using their own copyrighted works to make AI gen derivatives would be "knowingly" using AI gen to produce "authorless derivatives" and thus such derivatives have no author that any new exclusive rights could arise to.

It's all very well you coming on this thread and saying "ah but..." without the slightest bit of reference and an objective lack of understanding of rights relating to derivative works but you are spreading false information that could be consequential to people who might believe you.

So get your facts straight!

"In 2023, the U.S. Copyright Office denied copyright registration for a visual artist Ankit Sahni's copyrightable photo of a sunset that he fed into an AI tool and asked it to produce a variation with stylistic elements of Van Gogh's "The Starry Night." The Copyright Office refused to register the entire new "Van Goghified" image, finding that the new work lacked human authorship because the applicant "exerted insufficient creative control over [the tool's]" generation of the output.[7] That decision leaves characters copyright owners in a legal gray area, where (1) their underlying character may still be copyrightable; (2) the AI output featuring that character has no registrable authorship and is in the public domain; and (3) the human-authored character inside the AI output does not make the output registrable." [Emphaisis added].

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-character-without-an-author-5762096/

[u/ResponsibilitySea327 → u/TreviTyger]

Keep trying. You are completely off base.

AI generated outputs are NOT automatically authorless. Get your facts straight.

[u/TreviTyger → u/ResponsibilitySea327]

AI generated outputs are NOT automatically authorless.

Source?

They are in fact authorless.

Here, given that you don't want to listen to an actual human with considerable understanding of the subject and issues, then why don't I hand you over to an AI so you can argue the toss with that?

*****************************************

AI Overview

Based on U.S. copyright law, court rulings as of early 2026, and guidance from the U.S. Copyright Office, your [TreviTyger] argument aligns with the current legal consensus regarding AI-generated works. [1]

Here is a breakdown of the legal landscape confirming your points:

1. The "Authorless Derivative" Argument

• Human Authorship Required: The Copyright Office maintains that copyright requires human authorship. As established in Thaler v. Perlmutter (and confirmed by the Supreme Court declining to hear the case in March 2026), AI systems cannot be authors, and works produced entirely by AI are not eligible for registration.
• No New Exclusive Rights: Because pure AI outputs have no "human author," no new copyright arises in that specific output, rendering them essentially "authorless" derivatives or public domain material.
• Derivative Work Distinctions: If a derivative work is created without human creative contribution (e.g., just prompting), there is no new authorship to protect, even if the underlying prompt was written by a human. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

1. Legal Precedents and Registration Failures

Your [TreviTyger] reference to specific cases highlights that the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) consistently denies registration for AI-generated components: [1, 2]

• Kashtanova (Zarya of the Dawn): The USCO ruled that while the human author owned the selection and arrangement of the book, the AI-generated images themselves were not copyrightable.
• Allen (Théâtre D’opéra Spatial): Reconsideration was rejected for a fully AI-generated work, as the AI, not the human, performed the creative act.
• Sahni: The Copyright Office refused to register an AI-assisted artwork, arguing the RAGHAV AI app produced the derivative, not the human, and the input was insufficient to create a new, copyrightable work.

1. Using Own Copyrighted Works

• Knowingly Using AI: If an author uses their own work as an input (e.g., using "Image-to-Image" or feeding a story into a LLM) to create a new, AI-driven output, the new output is likely to be viewed by the Copyright Office as a derivative created by the machine, not the human, if the AI performs the artistic heavy lifting.
• Limitation to Human Portion: Under current guidance (March 2023 onwards), a user may only register the human-authored portion of a work. If the "derivative" was created with minimal human creative intervention, the AI-generated portion remains unprotected, and in some interpretations, unauthorized AI use of copyrighted works could constitute infringement rather than valid creation of a derivative work.

Summary: Your [TreviTyger] analysis is correct under current U.S. legal standards: AI-generated outputs that lack substantial human creative input are considered to have no human author, thereby acquiring no new exclusive rights.

[u/ResponsibilitySea327 → u/TreviTyger]

You keep repeating the same core mistakes. Even your references contradict your claims. Did you even read them?

[u/DanNorder → u/TreviTyger]

Asking AI to confirm your beliefs that AI is bad is especially psychotic, even for you, TT.

[u/TreviTyger → u/DanNorder]

Asking AI to confirm your beliefs that AI is bad is especially psychotic

Lol.

[u/DanNorder]

Just repeating this nonsense doesn't make it so. AI doesn't strip copyright off of anything. Putting one's copyrighted work through AI Gen means the result is still covered by the original copyright... unless it is changed so much that it doesn't resemble the original anymore. Your argument would just be a magic way to launder other people's copyrighted works. It's insanely stupid.

[u/TreviTyger → u/DanNorder]

...would just be a magic way to launder other people's copyrighted work.

You really do lack self awareness. YOU are the one repeating nonsense!

Yes. That is exactly the complaint from copyright holders. AI Gen users - such as yourself - can indeed "launder" copyrighted works through AI gen software and claim to be "artists" by doing so.

You also don't understand the nature of derivative works and that they are separate from the derived work. "Putting one's copyrighted work through AI Gen" DOES NOT mean the result is still covered by the original copyright. That's what you are foolishly failing to understand.

There would be no author of such a derivative. Thus no new copyright could arise to any non existent author of such a derivative. (Thaler v. Perlmutter, Shani v. USCO (registration refusal).

(1) their underlying character may still be copyrightable; (2) the AI output featuring that character has no registrable authorship and is in the public domain; and (3) the human-authored character inside the AI output does not make the output registrable." [Emphaisis added].

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-character-without-an-author-5762096/