@alex >all copyright for anything it produces is assigned to you.
The whole idea is the copyright can only be applied to creative works authored by a human.

Either these automated plagiarism tools infringe copyright, or their output doesn't qualify for copyright.

>In my experience none of these AI services infringe on copyright
Do you have a source for that claim better than "just believe me bro"?

>They do not produce derivative works, they produce original works inspired by the vast library of training data.
Computers are meant to be deterministic and therefore cannot produce anything original - all they can do is calculations, although those calculations can be used to copy data and do transformations on it.

What you're saying is that you have access to some software that you can put non-random numbers into and get truly random numbers out - that's preposterous.

>Like, you can get an AI to draw you a picture of Mario. But it would not be based on any previously existing Mario picture
How on earth is a computer meant to output a picture of mario without basing it off pictures on mario inputted into it?

>it would be an all new image of Mario. This is similar to fan art.
The thing is, fan works have been found to be derivative works of the original works many times in court.

In countries with fair use, provided you meet the fair use requirements, fan art of mario is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden (although if you draw an original character that looks somewhat like mario, but clearly isn't, that may not be a derivative work).