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
An AI is not a person. Automated transformation does not remove the original copyright, otherwise decompilers would as well. That the process is similar to a real person is not actually important, because it's still an automated transformation by a computer program.

We might be able to argue that the computer program taking art as input and automatically generating art as output is the exact same as an artist some time after general intelligence is reached, until then, it's still a machine transformation and should be treated as such.

AI shouldn't be a legal avenue for copyright laundering.

>>Taywee+Z8
Except the machine is not automatically generating an input

> automatically generating art as output

The user is navigating the latent space to obtain said output, I don't know if that's transformative or not, but it is an important distinction

If the program were wholy automated as in it had a random number/words generator added to it and no navigation of the latent space by users happened, then yeah I would agree, but that's not the case at least so far as ml algos like midjourney or stable diffusion are concerned

>>CyanBi+Hb
The output is probably irrelevant here, the model itself is a derivative work from a copyright standpoint.

Going painting > raw photo (derivative work), raw photo > jpg (derivative work), jpg > model (derivative work), model > image (derivative work). At best you can make a fair use argument at that last step, but that falls apart if the resulting images harm the market for the original work.

>>Retric+md
The question for me is whether "jpg > model" is derivative or transformative. It's not clear it would be derivative.

>>strken+ZA
You seem to be confused, transformative works are still derivative works. Being sufficiently transformative can allow for a fair use exception but you may need a court case to prove something is sufficiently transformative to qualify.