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
As a human, I can use whatever I want for reference for my drawings. Including copyrighted material.

Now, as for training "AI" models, who knows. You can argue it is the same thing a human is doing or you could argue it a new, different quality and should be under different rules. Regardless, the current copyright laws were written before "AI" models were in widespread use so whatever is allowed or not is more of a historic accident.

So the discussion needs to be about the intention of copyright laws and what SHOULD be.

>>cardan+F7
> As a human

you have rights.

AIs don't.

Because they don't have will.

It's like arresting a gun for killing people.

So, as a human, the individual(s) training the AI or using the AI to reproduce copyrighted material, are responsible for the copyright infringement, unless explicitly authorized by the author(s).