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
I would argue if people are allowed to see your art for free, so should AI models.

>>residu+w9
people are allowed to take a walk in the park, so why cars or tanks or bulldozers are not?

>>people+de
A bulldozer destroys the park and other people's ability to enjoy it -- active, destructive. Passively training a model on an artwork does not change the art in the slightest -- passive, non-destructive

Mind you, this is not talking about the usage rights of images generated from such a model, that's a completely different story and a legal one.