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
Bad argument. Being allowed to see art and being allowed to copy art are two different things. Being allowed to _copy_ is a reserved _right_, that's the root of the word copyright.

>>dotanc+5i
Bad argument. Copying art is not the crime, distributing the copied art is the crime. The Disney Gestapo can't send storm troopers to your house if your kid draws a perfect rendition of Mickey, but they can if your kid draws a bunch of perfect renditions and sells them online.