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
Diffusion models don't copy the pixels you show them. You cannot generally tell which training images inspired which output images.

(That's as opposed to a large language model, which does memorize text.)

Also, you can train it to imitate an artist's style just by showing it textual descriptions of the style. It doesn't have to see any images.