Can I copyright all creative works created hereafter by doing this? This question is inspired by the TED talk Copyrighting all the melodies to avoid accidental infringement and its Lobsters thread. Basically, the story is that Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin put every melody on a hard drive, thus automatically copyrighting them, in order to defend the independent creation of small musicians. In the following thought experiment, I am going to take one step further and try to copyright all creative works created hereafter. I'm not sure of its practicality, but I assure you it would be fun. Let me first introduce the Infinity Hard Drive. It is simply a device that echoes back its input. For example, if you feed a document/painting/music into it, it would echo back the identical document/painting/music. Essentially, it is merely a repeater that is unable to store anything like a conventional one, but you will see why I call it a hard drive in a moment. Say Alice publishes her creative work, and I would like to sue her for violating my copyright. I have the evidence that if someone feeds Alice's work into the Infinity Hard Drive, it will return the identical work. In fact, you can find anything in the Infinity Hard Drive, as long as you know what you are looking for. You might say "Seriously? You are literally taking Alice's work to generate yours!" But think about it: what would Alice do if Bob sues her for violating his copyright law? She would read Bob's work, and try to find the relevant drafts on her drawer that proves her work is original and independent. Relevance is the key here: if Alice has thousands of drafts at hand, it would make no sense to submit all of them to a court in response to a lawsuit concerning a specific work. Alice can read Bob's work to find her relevant work, so why can't the Infinity Hard Drive read someone's work to find my original work? I am arguing that conceptually, the process is more like using Alice's work to query my infinite collection of creative works to compute the location where my work resides, rather than generating one from scratch. Maybe Alice doesn't need to read Bob's whole work, but this is because her collection is finite. The Infinity Hard Drive is infinite in capacity, so naturally, it takes more information to find a specific work. In fact, Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin also need to take a melody to locate its counterpart in their hard drive, so if their approach works, so will mine. To reiterate, the Infinity Hard Drive serves as a "tangible medium of expression" of my infinite collection of creative works. From my understanding, the internal mechanism of such a media does not matter. It can be a piece of paper, an SSD, or the Infinity Hard Drive which conceptually contains everything. What really matters is the outcome, that "(works) can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." Just to clarify, what I’m trying to (automatically) copyright is not the Infinity Hard Drive itself, or the process of "querying" stuff in it, or the idea of making one. I am copyrighting the conceptual contents within. Just like you don't copyright the ink on a paper or electronic signals on a hard drive; you copyright the conceptual content born. I probably also need to prove that my work is "the result of creative decisions of a human being", but that is arguable. We know that a randomly-generated book is not a violation of copyright. Also, how could J.K. Rowling prove her work is creative instead of the accurate deception of an alternative universe? Anyway, if the contents of the Infinity Hard Drive is not copyrightable, then nothing is, because it contains everything. Finally, how do I prove that Alice had access to my infinite collection of creative works prior to her creation? Well, you are reading this right now, and the Infinity Hard Drive is, in fact, ubiquitous, e.g. a mirror, or a computer that echoes back your keystrokes on the screen. Now, can I sue you for copyright infringement with the Infinity Hard Drive? To extend the scope of this question a little, can I also claim its ownership? originality? If the answers to the above questions are all "No", then can I defend myself from a copyright infringement lawsuit with the Infinity Hard Drive?
Copyright requires originality Your infinity hard drive appears to be a machine designed to violate copyright by immediately copying anything presented to it. Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin were creating original melodies. These do not have copyright until they are fixed in a tangible medium. That's what the hard drive is for. This is insurance against them being sued if they release a song and someone claims it violates that person's copyright - they can produce in court the melody with a date stamp of 2015 (or whatever). GitHub or similar would be even better evidence. In this context there is a specific allegation that melody X infringes copyright. Riehl &amp; Rubin can then go to their records (including metadata) and say no, here is melody X version 1 through n and they all predate your release so we didn’t violate your copyright.
Generally speaking, it is illegal for you to do this. Copyright gives the creator of the image the exclusive right to copy it, and just making copies to send to other people is probably not going to be fair use. Making copies without a license from the copyright holder would therefore be copyright infringement. Are there likely to be any consequences for doing this? Probably not.
There is no such law; copyright secures exclusive rights for the copyright holder (and related rights sometimes secure certain rights for the author which cannot be sold or given away except through death), but it cannot be used to force them to spend money to distribute it in a form that you can conveniently use. Such a rule would defeat the purpose of copyright law, which is to give the copyright holder control over the use of the work, not take away their ability to do so. You can certainly request that they release the work, and can offer to pay them for doing so. But someone who does not own the copyright or any related rights cannot use copyright law to force the person who does own the copyright to spend their own money to convert a show into a new format.
You are in effect asking if this is a case of Fair use, an important US-specific legal concept in copyright law. Please review this question for an overview of fair use. See also This statement from the US copyright office Deciding whether a use is a fair use is always a fact-driven, case-by-case, process. No one ever knows for sure if a use is a fair use unless that specific use is challenged in court as infringement, and the fair use defense is raised and sustained or not. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry. This means that there is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission. ("More Information on Fair Use" -US Copyright office) Factors Let's look at the fair-use factors in the case of this photo: Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: The use is apparently for clearly commercial purpose. This tends to weigh against fair use, but does not rule it out. Then the is the question of whether the use is transformative. The background image apparently serves its original decorative purpose. Whether making it part of an ad is transformative might be debated. Nature of the copyrighted work: The graffiti is an artistic and creative work, not a work of non-fiction or news reporting or factual information. This also tends to weigh against fair use. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: It seems that almost all of the work of graffiti, or at least a significant part of it, is being used. This tends to weigh against fair use to some degree. moreover, the work of graffiti is quite prominent in the background of the work, which ,means it makes a significant contribution to the final work, which also weighs against fair use. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: If the work of graffiti is currently being marketed, the question does not say so, and i would suppose that it isn't. There could be a potential market: the artist could make photos or prints of the work and market them, for example. Even so, this image probably wouldn't affect such a market much. This factor probably inclines towards fair use, but it is hard to say just how a court would asses it. Case law In Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997) A poster of a “church quilt” was used in the background of a television series for 27 seconds. This was held not to be fair use. The court was influenced by the prominence of the poster, its thematic importance for the set decoration of a church, and the fact that it was a conventional practice to license such works for use in television programs. This case seems particularly close to the one in the question. In Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006) posters of Grateful Dead concerts were reproduced in a book. This was held to be fair use. The reduced size of the images, and their appearance in the context of a timeline were considered significant. In Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC, 766 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2014) A modified photo of a Wisconsin mayor was reproduced on a Tshirt and used to raise money for an event. the photo was posterized, background removed, text added, and a lime green outline featuring the mayor’s smile remained. The resulting image of the mayor, the court stated, “can’t be copyrighted.” Defendants removed so much of the original that, as with the Cheshire Cat, only the smile remains. Defendants started with a low-­resolution version posted on the City’s website, so much of the original’s detail never had a chance to reach the copy; the original’s background is gone; its colors and shading are gone; the expression in Soglin’s eyes can no longer be read; after the posterization (and reproduction by silk-­screening), the effect of the lighting in the original is almost extinguished. What is left, besides a hint of Soglin’s smile, is the outline of his face, which can’t be copyrighted. (I take this to mean that the elements actually copied do not have enough original content to be a copyrightable wqrk.) In Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 336 F.3d. 811 (9th Cir. 2003) use of thumbnail images in search engine results was held to be fair use. The reduced size and image quality were significant to the court. So was the transformative use of the images to help identify and index the pages. Conclusion This is not a clear-cut case, in my view, but the case for fair use does not seem strong to me. Copyright protection of Unauthorized Graffiti A number of comments and some other answers have raised the question of whether graffiti made without the permission of the owner or tenant of the location, and therefore illegally, are entitled to copyright protection. The first thing to say is that there is nothing in 17 USC (the US copyright law) that conditions copyright protection on the legality of the work, or of its publication. Case law on this precise issue is not easy to find, nor does there seem to be much of it. IPWatchDog's "Preventing a Graffiti Copyright Infringement Lawsuit" (2018) says: Several high-profile companies, American Apparel, Coach, American Eagle Outfitters and H&amp;M who shot advertisements in public spaces, have found themselves inadvertently in the midst of such legal disputes with street artists. Even though an advertiser may have had permission from the property owners, even though the “artwork” was unsanctioned and unsigned or “tagged,” the graffiti artists have come forward after the ads were already in circulation, identified themselves and sought compensation and damages. It goes on to say that: These cases tend to be settled out of court, because regardless of the merit of an infringement claim, they are costly to defend and the unwarranted negative publicity can injure a company’s reputation. ... Also, from a legal standpoint, the question of whether the copyrights of illegally created street art are valid has not yet been determined – so there would be some element of doubt as to how a litigation would be decided. *The Atlantic's article "Can Graffiti Be Copyrighted?" about the case of graffiti artist David Anasagasti's case against American Eagle Outfitters for use of his work (and several other similar suits) quotes Philippa Loengard, assistant director of Columbia Law School’s Kernochan Center for Law, Media, and the Arts as saying: Given what I know of the case, this is one of the most blatant examples of copyright infringement None of the suits mentioned in the story seem to have resulted in a court decision as yet. In Falkner v. General Motors Company, the trial judge held that the art was not "part of" the building and thus the exemption for photos of architectural works under 17 USC 120 does not apply. However it denied plaintiff’s DMCA claim and his claim for punitive damages. The court held that: because the facts in the record tend to establish—if anything—the lack of a relevant connection between the mural and the parking garage, the Court cannot hold as a matter of law that the mural is part of an architectural work under Section 102(a)(8). Thus, it cannot reach the issue of whether Section 120(a) applies to the mural to permit photographs of the mural. In an article in the N.Y.U. Journal of IP &amp; Entertainment Law "Protecting Artistic Vandalism" author Celia Lerman argues that copyright should protect unauthorized, illegal graffiti art. This article notes that: Graffiti pieces increasingly attract the attention of numerous collectors, gallery owners, publishers, filmmakers, and journalists. Pieces from famous graffiti artists have sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars in the art market. Graffiti pieces have even been given as diplomatic gifts. Galleries are seeing record attendance at exhibitions of graffiti works, and publishers have generated a boom of photographic books on graffiti and street art. (citations omitted) The article notes that Tattooed Walls a book by Peter Rosenstein about NYC Graffiti, reproduced images of many works of graffiti without permisison, the author believed that these were fair use because they were posted in public places. Several artist sued, a settlement was agreed to, and the book was withdrawn from publication. The article mentions a suit against Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 2 Official Strategy Guide, by the author of a work of graffiti which was reproduced. The suit was initially dismissed for lack of copyright registration, but the court said that it “assumed, without deciding, that the work is copyrightable.” When the suit was refiled after registration, a motion to dismiss was denied, and the parties then settled, so there was no court decision on the merits. Other simialtr cases are mentioned. The article goes on to analyze the law and the purposes that copyright law serves, and give reasons why such works should be protected. But none of this cites an actual case where an illegal graffito has been held protected. The Falkner case will not produce such a ruling, because the art in that case was authorized, indeed invited, by the building owner.
A proof can be protected by copyright. The underlying facts of math cannot. But if one has copied details of the order of the proof, or of the selection of theorems to use, and if several other choices would have been possible, then the new proof may constitute a trivially modified copy, or a derivative work, and in either case making of it might be copyright infringement. However, making and distributing a copy, even with no changes at all, for purposes of comment and criticism, might be fair use in the US, fair dealing in the UK or some other parts of the Commonwealth, or fall under an exception to copyright in other countries (these generally vary significantly by country). This is usually a very fact-driven question.
The lyricist and composers already have copyright. Copyright exists for the moment of creation: registration is not necessary to enforce copyright rights and to grant licences. Registration in the US is merely useful if you want to prove that you own the copyright which otherwise would require providing evidence of the date of creation, priority etc. Most countries do not have copyright registers. Similarly, you will have copyright in the derivative work of the soundtrack from the moment of its creation.
I presume the input is text: "my original text" is assumed to mean you wrote (created) the text. That means that you hold the copyright to the text, and only you can authorize a derivative work (such as a synthesized recording). Therefore, you hold the copyright to the recordings as well. The crucial consideration governing that right is that you "created" the work, meaning that there is a modicum of creativity. However, if you did not create the text and your only function is to host an automatic process where users can create a synthesized recording, then whoever created the text has the right to the text and derivative works (i.e. the synthesized output). Automated processes like (unassisted) OCR or wav-to-mp3 conversion would not count as being "original", nor would automatic text-to-speech, so you don't gain copyright just from making an automatic work-creating tool available. On the assumption that the conversion involves a component of Chrome, you can use the service per the terms of service, though you cannot "reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, trade or resell the Services". This might limit the extent to which you could make this conversion available to others, depending on how, exactly, you could do such a thing (does it duplicate the service?). As they say, Google owns all legal right to the Services, but Google obtains no right from you for any content created through their service. There is no restriction in the TOS against using the service for commercial purposes. Even if there were, that would not assign copyright in the recording to anyone else, it would just mean they could sue you for violating the TOS.
If you use the reviewer's code, or code derived from it (e.g. if you just changed a variable name) then they own the copyright on that part of the software. If the reviewer describes a solution which you implement, or if you re-implement the code from scratch while taking ideas and methods from the reviewer's code, then you own the copyright on that code. However if there are only a few ways to implement something in code then the code is not creative and hence cannot be copyrighted. For example the regular expression in the question you link to is (as far as I can tell) the only correct solution to the problem: any programmer addressing the problem will have come up with that RE. In this the position is akin to a database of phone numbers: while the collection may be copyright (depending on whether selection or arrangement required creativity), the fact that Alice Jones has the number 012345 is not copyrightable, and neither is the alphabetical arrangement of names. Where it gets messy is the boundary between the two. The requirement to detect 4 or more repeated digits in a credit card number could be implemented in a number of ways, but whether there are enough of these to qualify any particular solution as "creative" would be a matter of fact for a court to decide.