zlacker

>>dredmo+(OP)
I don't see the point. There is a copyright (and in that regard most of these images are fine) and then there is trademark which they might violate.

Regardless, the human generating and publishing these images is obviously responsible to ensure they are not violating any IP property. So they might get sued by Disney. I don't get why the AI companies would be effected in any way. Disney is not suing Blender if I render an image of Mickey Mouse with it.

Though I am sure that artists might find an likely ally in Disney against the "AI"'s when they tell them about their idea of making art-styles copyright-able Being able to monopolize art styles would be indeed a dream come true for those huge corporations.

>>cardan+G3
It boils down to this: Do you need permission if you train your AI model with copyrighted things or not?

>>Tepix+B5
Ehhh that’s like saying an artist who studies other art pieces and then creates something using combined techniques and styles from those set pieces is what ???? Now liable ???

>>gt565k+w6
Not at all, for many reasons.

1) the artist is not literally copying the copyrighted pixel data into their "system" for training

2) An individual artist is not a multi billion dollar company with a computer system that spits out art rapidly using copyrighted pixel data. A categorical difference.

>>TaupeR+Ta
Those reasons don't make sense to me.

On 1, human artists are copying copyrighted pixel data into their system for training. That system is the brain. It's organic RAM.

On 2, money shouldn't make a difference. Jim Carrey should still be allowed to paint even though he's rich.

If Jim uses Photoshop instead of brushes, he can spit out the style ideas he's copied and transformed in his brain more rapidly - but he should still be allowed to do it.