No, it doesn't matter whether a computer converted or to a JPEG or a human.
The method and actor are irrelevant.
The only relevant part is the result.
Is the resulting JPEG transformative?
The method and actor are irrelevant.
The only relevant part is the result.
Is the resulting JPEG transformative?
That may be what you mostly care about, but it is definitely not true in deciding legal questions.
If your originally produced content, without ever having seen the other thing, is substantially similar to something that already exists, you are much more likely to be in trouble (in the sense that someone will take issue, not in the sense that you can be convicted) than if you copied something existing, and transformed it into something unrecognizable.
> They provide information on that site about when the Sun rises and sets and so on... but they also provide it under a disclaimer saying that this information is not suitable for use in court. If you need to know when the Sun rose or set for use in a court case, then you need an expert witness - because you don't actually just need the bits that say when the Sun rose. You need those bits to be Coloured with the Colour that allows them to be admissible in court, and the USNO doesn't provide that....It's a question of where the numbers came from.
That's just saying that your bits have to be authenticated/verified to be accepted as accurate.
Which makes sense and is entirely different than "your bits are illegal and your other identical bits are legal."
That happens all the time though. If I rip a copy of a movie for backup purposes, that rip is legal. If I upload a torrent of it, the exact same bits on my disk are now illegal distribution of a copyrighted work.
If I am the artist who owns the copyright of the work, my bits can legally be redistributed.
The intent and legal status of the bits matters in a ton of cases.
Or maybe it would be the same as photocopying a book, where laws restrict the proportion of the work that can be reproduced without permission.
Or maybe it will be its own thing, where courts and government decide existing laws are insufficient and we need new laws.
1. "Smack my bitch up" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU5Dn-WaElI
2. "Voodoo people" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZYLp5uX9Yw
Those pieces sound exactly the same as the original, but it does not violate copyright because they've been produced by hand. Mind blowing!
Anyway I'm definitely not a copyright expert but I just found this argument extremely weak.
Similarly, I can't draw a batman cartoon with pencil and paper and avoid copyright claims when I try to sell the episodes.
Please do not go around infringing on copyright and thinking it's OK because you recreated whatever it was by hand.
Jim Pavloff was never sued by Prodigy or the right owners.
On the other hand:
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/blurred-lines-...
> Marvin Gaye’s Estate won a lawsuit against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for the hit song “Blurred Lines,” which had a similar feel to one of his songs
Which refutes your assertion of no potential copyright violation.
B. They don't sound exactly the same as the original.
C. That they were produced by hand or automation is irrelevant.