Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

creative input is not that impossible to define.

A malfunctioning equipment don't change the fact if a artist has made some creative input. So long the creative aspect is still visible (ie, the image is not all a single color), there is a argument to get copyright for the combined result. What the creator do not get is exclusive right to any work that has similar malfunctioning but with different creative input, so a interesting looking artifact from malfunctions should not be copyrightable.

A misconfiguration could be argued to be a form of creative input. Debatable. A write should still be entitled to copyright, even if their books has odd words from when auto-correcting software misbehave.

Who trigged the image is not very important so long the creative input exist. Arguable you could claim that a director has more claim to copyright that the person behind the device, but this is the place which practicality comes into place where society prefer to have a single author over many. From a philosophical perspective I would say that every person involved in creating a artistic work should get copyright ownership, similar to how every developer of the linux kernel has copyright ownership for each part they made.



Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: