> If you trace art by hand that is still copyright infringement. If you paraphrase a passage from a book by hand that is still copyright infringement.
What if I see some fine art, I, a non-artist, make a super-low quality recreation of it with crayons, give that + a verbal description to a different professional artist who has not seen the original, and have them "upscale" my bad drawing into new fine art.
Their art would be conceptually very similar to the original. Same layout, same concept, same vibes, same style (if my verbal description was sufficiently good) but all the details would be different. Is this still infringement?
If this worked all artists would be passible for lawsuits, how many ways can you draw flowers in a vase? "They stole my idea, your honour! They used the same number of flowers in a vase, I came up with the concept of 3 flowers first."
I think artists and copyright intermediaries would like to have "wildcard" copyright, "draw a flower once, all flowers belong to you now", and it would be very bad for creativity if they got their way.
The vast majority of profit most artists are making is also copyright infringement. Custom porn is where the money is, and Rule 34 is likely a huge part of that.
What if I see some fine art, I, a non-artist, make a super-low quality recreation of it with crayons, give that + a verbal description to a different professional artist who has not seen the original, and have them "upscale" my bad drawing into new fine art.
Their art would be conceptually very similar to the original. Same layout, same concept, same vibes, same style (if my verbal description was sufficiently good) but all the details would be different. Is this still infringement?