> Try releasing a cover song without clearing it first etc. Even using a recognizable sample will bite you

So… it’s complicated. This is one of the weird areas where music copyright and other copyright seem to differ in the US.

In the US the situation is complex and there are a lot of weird special interests [0], but generally a composer/author of a song has the right to decide who first records and releases the song, but after the first recording covers require a mechanical license, which is compulsory (ie: the author cannot object).

In music there are _a lot_ of special cases and different rights are decided with different kinds of licenses, some of which are compulsory. I think it’s an area that doesn’t make for good analogies with copyright in other media.

0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license

You are absolutely right. I should have phrased that differently. Derivative work is a legal term, but I misused it above. I should have either used another term or been clearer.

If the work is "derivative" in the legal sense it is copyrighted, and you may not create derivative works without the copyright holders permission.

What I should have said is that simply being inspired by a work or copying unprotectable elements (like facts or ideas) does not create a derivative work.

For example, if ChatGPT were to generate Star Wars, except with Dookies instead of Wookies, that might be illegal. If it were to learn what a spaceship is from Star Wars and then create something substantially new it would not. The key is is that it must not be substantially similar to the original. You must add enough value that it becomes something new, not just rehash the original.