zlacker

>>dredmo+(OP)
Context, too long to fit into the HN title: "In order to protest AI image generators stealing artists work to train AI models, the artists are deliberately generating AI art based on the IP of corporations that are most sensitive to protecting it."

>>dredmo+1
Interesting approach, but is drawing fan art illegal?

I would think that generating those images is okay by Disney, the same as if I painted them. The moment Disney would object is when I start selling them on merch, at which point it is irrelevant how they were created.

Am I mistaken?

>>yreg+D3
Copyright isn't level legal vs illegal, it's infringing vs non-infringing. Fan art very often could be argued to be infringing, but no company has any reason to pursue it in the vast majority of cases, so they just don't.

It's very confusing, especially when you have to consider trademark as related but separate.

>>Taywee+9a
I don't get your distinction: copyright infringement is illegal, so "infringing" implies "illegal"

>>jefftk+5h
Infringement carries both civil (noncriminal) and criminal proscriptions and liabilities under much law, e.g., under US law, 17 USC Chapter 5:

<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-5>