Second, I'm wondering if what that US page means is that a non-original work doesn't get copyright protections, or that non-original work is itself in breach of copyright? Maybe I should go digging to find out.

I agree deliberately designed digital worlds are artistic creations. Just that randomly generated ones are not.

You're probably right that legal examples on both sure probably already exist.

[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

BTW, thank you for this discussion!

The crux of the matter for me is the question wherever "the selection process" alone is enough to create art or not, and depending on my mood I fall to one side or another on that question. Not specifically if it is under copyright or not, because that sort of follows from that.

Artists often use randomness in various parts of their creation process, what is really required is the human element. Is a picture of a cloud, that speaks to the photographer in some way art or just a picture of a random cloud?

I guess this has to be decided on a case by case basis, therefore I cannot completely exclude it.

[–] Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 month ago

You're welcome, and thank you too.

I agree with all that. The edge cases are tricky and there's no easy answer.

A painter flicking or splashing paint on a canvas presumably makes something with copyright protection.

Does an accidentally statically impossible basically impossible to tell apart version accidentally made by someone flicking and splashing their own paint infringe it? I'd hope not but can't really argue for a rule on it that doesn't involve believing stated goals/mind reading.

Guess not a thing us mortals/non-legal professionals can ever answer.