> is clear that if they read Harry Potter and reproduce it on demand as a party trick that would be fair use.
Actually no that could be copyright infringement. Badly signing a recent pop song in public also qualifies as copyright infringement. Public performances count as copying here.
There’s a bunch of nuance here.
But just for clarification, selling a recreation isn’t required for copyright infringement. The copying itself can be problematic so you can’t defend yourself by saying you haven’t yet sold any of the 10,000 copies you just printed. There are some exceptions that allow you to make copies for specific purposes, skip protection on a portable CD player for example, but that doesn’t apply to the 10k copies situation.
Ah sorry. I mistyped. Being able to do that it would be fair use. I went back and fixed the comment.
Although frankly, as has been pointed out many times, the law is also stupid in what it prohibits and that should be fixed first as a priority. Its done some terrible damage to our culture. My family used to be part of a community choir until it shut down basically for copyright reasons.
> Badly signing a recent pop song in public also qualifies as copyright infringement
For commercial purposes only. If someone sells a recreation of the Harry Potter book, it’s illegal regardless whether it was by memory, directly copying the book, or using an LLM. It’s the act of broadcasting it that’s infringing on copyright, not the content itself.