comment: >
  
  Intuitively I would argue that is entirely new as opposed to a collage. That is an interesting position in your last sentence. So it would be public domain then? Couple questions in that scenario: 
  
  
  How would they prove whether there was copyrighted data in the training? Some people might not know what a model that comes to them has been trained on in the past. 
  
  
  What would you say to the argument about influence? If I listen to George Carlin's stand up 5000 times and then create a stand up set of my own which is clearly influenced by his work but draws no direct copying, should I be able to copyright my set?
context: /u/4vrf (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  These are some good resources and I will look into them now. In terms of the mickey mouse thing, if the output has elements of something that is protected, then that is infringing and Disney can sue. I am talking about cases where the output does not have direct elements of copying >
  
  ...but that's the argument isn't it? The data the AI was trained on consisted of copyrighted elements. So is it more akin to an artist taking copyrighted images and putting together a collage for their own copyright, or is it entirely new?
  It's certainly nuanced. I think ultimately judges will rule that anything made via an AI that had copyrighted data in its training will result in the output not being eligible for copyright.