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
If you do need permission, is Page Rank a copyright infringing AI, or just a sparkling matrix multiplication derived entirely from everyone else's work?

>>ben_w+27
The output of Pagerank for a given page is not another new page, that's curiously close in style and execution but laundered of IP concerns.

A tool that catalogues attributed links can't really be evaluated the same way as pastiche machine.

You'd be much closer using the example of Google's first page answer snippets, that are pulled out of a site's content with minimal attribution.