alt Hacker News> At which point I find myself wondering if there's actually a problem. If it was previously permitted due to the presence of creative input, why should automating that process change the legal status? What justifies treating human output differently?
Copyright law... automated transformation preserves copyright. It makes the output a derivative of the input.
Yes that's what the law currently says. I'm asking if it ought to say that in this specific scenario.
Previously there was no way for a machine to do large swaths of things that have now recently become possible. Thus a law predicated on the assumption that a machine can't do certain things might need to be revisited.