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
Among the goals seems to be a bit of well-poisoning. Artists have done this previously by creating art saying, say, "This site sells STOLEN artwork, do NOT by from them", and encouraging followers to reply with "I want this on a t-shirt", which had previously been used by rip-off sites to pirate artwork. See:

<https://waxy.org/2019/12/how-artists-on-twitter-tricked-spam...>

If art streams are tree-spiked with copyrighted or trademarked works, then AI generators might be a bit more gun-shy about training with abandon on such threads.

It's a form of monkeywrenching.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_spiking>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage#As_environmental_acti...>

>>dredmo+fm
Not sure about Stable Diffusion / Metawhatsit, but OpenAI's training set is already curated to make sure it avoids violence and pornography; and in any case, the whole thing relies on humans to come up with descriptions. Not clear how this sort of thing would "spike the well" in that sense.