Technology

You're correct in your description of what a derivative work is, but this part is mistaken:

The intent is so that artists can make a living for their innovation.

The intent is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" so that, in the long run, the Public Domain is enriched with more works than would otherwise exist if no incentive were given. Allowing artists to make a living is nothing more than a means to that end.

Why do people who have no idea how some thing works feel the urge to comment on its working? It's not just AI, it's pretty much everything.

AI does learn, that's the whole shtick and that's why it's so good at stuff computers used to suck at. AI is pretty much just a buzzword, the correct abbreviation is ML which stands for Machine Learning - it's even in the name.

AI also recognizes it looks at a human! It can also recognize what they're wearing, the material. AI is also better in many, many things than humans are. It also sucks compared to humans in many other things.

No images are in its database, you fancy Xerox.

Additionally, "copyright infringement is a moral right" seems fairly wrong. Copyright laws currently are too steep and I can agree with that but if I make a piece of art like a book, video game, or movie, do I not deserve to protect it in order to get money? I'd argue that because we live in a capitalistic society so, yes, I deserve to get paid for the work I did.

No. And it's not just me saying that; the folks who wrote the Copyright Clause (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson) would disagree with you, too.

The natural state of a creative work is for it to be part of a Public Domain. Ideas are fundamentally different from property in the sense that property's value comes from its exclusive use by its owner, wheras an idea's value comes from spreading it, i.e., giving it away to others.

Here's how Jefferson described it:

stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. it would be curious then if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. if nature has made any one thing less susceptible, than all others, of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an Idea; which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the reciever cannot dispossess himself of it. it’s peculiar character too is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. he who recieves an idea from me, recieves instruction himself, without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, recieves light without darkening me. that ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benvolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point; and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. inventions then cannot in nature be a subject of property. society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility. but this may, or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.

Thus we see the basis for the rationale given in the Copyright Clause itself: "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts," which is very different from creating some kind of entitlement to creators because they "deserve" it.

The true basis for copyright law in the United States is as a utilitarian incentive to encourage the creation of more works - a bounty for creating. Ownership of property is a natural right which the Constitution pledges to protect (see also the 4th and 5th Amendments), but the temporary monopoly called copyright is merely a privilege granted at the pleasure of Congress. Essentially, it's a lease from the Public Domain, for the benefit of the Public. It is not an entitlement; what the creator of the work "deserves" doesn't enter into it.

And if the copyright holder abuses his privilege such that the Public no longer benefits enough to be worth it, it's perfectly just and reasonable for the privilege to be revoked.

At the end of the day, the artists just want to be able to afford to eat, play games, and have shelter. Why in the world is that a bad thing in our current society? You can't remove copyright law without first removing capitalism.

This is a bizarre, backwards argument. First of all, a government-granted monopoly is the antethesis of the "free market" upon which capitalism is supposedly based. Second, granting of monopolies is hardly the only way to accomplish either goal of "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts" or of helping creators make a living!