Semjaza

Yes, because you've added a "container" word. Well done. You get a gold star.

It's hard to take your questions like this in unconditional good faith when you also post like this:

So would be kind enough to indulge me as to asking why you asked this question and what you were expecting from it? And what you'll do with the resulting knowledge?

I should say though, I do like and appreciate that you've taken to asking questions and creating a space where people discuss, or at least fire off comments into the void.

I'm also posting down in the reply chain so it's not as obvious a post. You'll get the notification, but others will have to read and look a bit more.

Wokism needs more John Browns, am I right?

Sounds like a narcissist, like Trump or Jez from Peep Show.

Not a healthy outlook and works well to prevent self reflection.

I and Just Stop Oil are glad of your support and understanding.

Day-tah

And it's uncountable.

So you're arguing what exactly?

That since they both came in an oppressed the local Arabs of the 1830s (who are in no way ever included in the definition of Palestian?) and took their land that but migration continued so the Israeli pushing of Palestinians off of the land is just a continuation of what both sides did to the definitely never Palestinian Arabs who were there earlier and so it isn't wrong?

Hits differently knowing that masses of Anarchists and LGBTQI+ and Poly-women were executed in the purges of "走资派" people in the following years.

You're welcome, and thank you too.

I agree with all that. The edge cases are tricky and there's no easy answer.

A painter flicking or splashing paint on a canvas presumably makes something with copyright protection.

Does an accidentally statically impossible basically impossible to tell apart version accidentally made by someone flicking and splashing their own paint infringe it? I'd hope not but can't really argue for a rule on it that doesn't involve believing stated goals/mind reading.

Guess not a thing us mortals/non-legal professionals can ever answer.

First, we're talking cross duristicion, since I was using the EU ruling above.

Second, I'm wondering if what that US page means is that a non-original work doesn't get copyright protections, or that non-original work is itself in breach of copyright? Maybe I should go digging to find out.

I agree deliberately designed digital worlds are artistic creations. Just that randomly generated ones are not.

You're probably right that legal examples on both sure probably already exist.

Yes, and you have copyright on the photo - not the layout of the plants and trees in it, nor even the angle of the subject. Someone else can go with a camera and take their own photo without touching your copyright.

Much like with digital files, the copyright is as it is a non-random transformation of a mostly replicable media product. People don't have a copyright on numbers, even if their 5000 trillion billion digit number happened to turn into a 1960s Disney short if you run it through the right compiler.

A Minecraft World isn't, not even if you draw on it with exploration as the world was generated from a random seed.

It is random, and unpredictable. You could maybe make an argument from reusing the random seed... But since the ability to turn the seed into the map isn't something a human can replicate without Minecraft I think it also fails the test for copyright.