zlacker

>>zacwes+(OP)
An artist can look at images for reference, and draw something new inspired by them. Why does it matter if a software tool can do this much faster?

If the artist makes the image very similar to one of the reference photos, it may be a copyright violation. It doesn't matter if the artist used a pencil or software to create the new work.

Current AI image generation does, however, make it easy to unknowingly violate copyright. If it generates an image similar to something else out there you wouldn't know.

I don't know much about copyright law though, am I wrong?

>>TheMid+94
Well, there was a copyright case in Europe recently where an artist had taken a photograph, flipped it horizontally, and painted it.

It was deemed an original work by the court.

I can’t see how, with such a precedent, they could rule that SD doesn’t produce original works.

https://www.rangefinderonline.com/news-features/industry-new...

>>madaxe+Im
> It was deemed an original work by the court.

The resolution is much weirder than that, the court argued that the pose isn't original enough for the photo to deserve copyrights at all, independently of what the plagiarist did with it.