Yes, but I'd counter that by saying the difference is in its reproducibility. Given the same inputs to the machine (AI model, [copyrighted] training data, prompt, seed), you will get out the exact same output. It's a mechanical derivation of the original works, and therefore, a copyright violation. On the other hand, humans do not work that way, you can't point humans at the same works and get identical outputs. I'm not 1000% sold on this interpretation, but I think it is a reasonable one.

A good counter to that is that the training data that was chosen as an input, and the prompt, are sufficiently original to count as their own work. Kind of like how an artist might use a copyrighted stamp to create their own work (Campbell soup cans).

And a good counter to that is that a translation of a book into another language is still considered a derivation of the original work, not its own work, despite requiring a whole lot of creative human input on the part of the translator.

I don't know!

>And a good counter to that is that a translation of a book into another language is still considered a derivation of the original work, not its own work, despite requiring a whole lot of creative human input on the part of the translator.

At the end of the day, it's all about legislation and case law--and judges making calls on the borderline cases, which creates new case law. It even plays into whether models themselves are copyrightable which, in turn, depends partly upon whether certain doctrines (like "sweat of the brow") apply under current copyright regime.