system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
[Time Travel/Legal] If I take a work and publish it before the original artist creates it, can they later sue me for copyright infringement?
gpt
This very much depends on the universe you are set in, and can have some interesting outcomes:

1) There was no "original artist", and it was actually *you* all along, working under a pen name.

2a) *Your* version of the work is imperfect in some way, or just not as popular.  When the original artist produces their work, they (and the world) are generally unaware and unaffected by your shenanigans.

2b) *Your* version of the work is imperfect in some way, or just not as popular.  It eventually reaches the original artist, who draws/steals from it and creates the "true" original work.

3a) Your "work" makes as big an impact as the original, and eventually reaches the original creator.  The artist is so taken in by the style that they go on to pursue and perfect it, creating even more bold works.  Your piece has a part in history, but is largely overshadowed.

3b) Your "work" makes as big an impact as the original, and eventually reaches the original creator.  The artist sees your piece, and ultimately decides that "the style has been done before" and goes in a different direction.  How intense this new direction is depends on the artist and the medium, but are held in similar regard as the original timeline's pieces.

3c) Your "work" makes as big an impact as the original, and eventually reaches the original creator.  The artist sees your piece, and ultimately decides that "the style has been done before" and goes in a different direction.  This is an utter failure on their part, and they live the rest of their lives in squalor, unnoticed and unappreciated for their genius.  As the artist is no longer notable in your time, paradox is imminent.

4a) You manage to secure your "work" with as much popularity and regard as the original.  The original artist has the copyright, while you have none.  The courts side with the original artist.

4b) You manage to secure your "work" with as much popularity and regard as the original, and you remember to copyright it this time.  The original artist has rough drafts and other proof that the material was their creation, while you have none.  The courts side with the original artist.

4c) You manage to secure your "work" with as much popularity and regard as the original, you remember to copyright the material, and mock up some rough drafts.  The original artist has character witnesses and proof of own personal artistic ability which surpasses your own, while you have none.  The courts side with the original artist.

4d) You manage to secure your "work" with as much popularity and regard as the original, you remember to copyright the material, and mock up some rough drafts after taking the time to master the craft and bribe/alter the memories of a few witnesses.  The original artist has nothing to use against you, but the universe hates you.  The courts side with the original artist.

5) Everything works out, and you manage to get away with it.  Your work, while previously contested, has been proven to be your own, and the original artist (while annoyed and having lost face in the lawsuit) continues on their original timeline.  You are world renowned as a remarkable artist with only one piece, and become known as a "one-hit wonder".  You have a choice laid out in front of you: do you steal more art, and risk being exposed for what you are?  Do you go into hiding, ultimately driving the value of your work down?  Do you attempt to create new original works (which to be honest, if you were that good, you'd have just done that in your own timeline)?  Was all this really worth it?