zlacker

Those reasons don't make sense to me.

On 1, human artists are copying copyrighted pixel data into their system for training. That system is the brain. It's organic RAM.

On 2, money shouldn't make a difference. Jim Carrey should still be allowed to paint even though he's rich.

If Jim uses Photoshop instead of brushes, he can spit out the style ideas he's copied and transformed in his brain more rapidly - but he should still be allowed to do it.

>>brushf+(OP)
> On 1, human artists are copying copyrighted pixel data into their system for training. That system is the brain. It's organic RAM.

They probably aren't doing that. Studying the production methods and WIPs is more useful for a human. (ML models basically guess how to make images until they produce one that "looks like" something you show it.)

>>brushf+(OP)
A human can grow and learn based on their own experiences separate from their art image input. They'll sometimes get creative and develop their own unique style. Through all analogies, the AI is still a program with input and output. Point 1 doesn't fit for the same reason it doesn't work for any compiler. Until AI can innovate itself and hold its own copyright, it's still a machine transformation.

>>brushf+(OP)
I think the parent's point about (2) wasn't about money, but category. A human is a human and has rights, an AI model is a tool and does not have rights. The two would not be treated equally under the law in any other circumstances, so why would you equate them when discussing copyright?

>>astran+W2
They do sometimes, or at least they used to. I have some (very limited) visual art training, and one of the things I/we did in class was manually mash up already existing works. In my case I smushed the Persistence of Memory and the Arnolfini portrait. It was pretty clear copycat; the work was divided into squares and I poorly replicated the Arnolfini Portrait from square to square.