zlacker

As someone who's shifted careers twice because disruptive technologies made some other options impractical, I can definitely appreciate that some artists are very upset about the idea of maybe having to change their plans for the future (or maybe not, depending on the kind of art they make), but all art is built on art that came before.

How is training AI on imagery from the internet without permission different than decades of film and game artists borrowing H. R. Giger's style for alien technology?[1]

How is it different from decades of professional and amateur artists using the characteristic big-eyed manga/anime look without getting permission from Osamu Tezuka?

Copyright law doesn't cover general "style". Try to imagine the minefield that would exist if it were changed to work that way.

[1] No, I don't mean Alien, or other works that actually involved Giger himself.

>>blinco+(OP)
> Copyright law doesn't cover general "style". Try to imagine the minefield that would exist if it were changed to work that way.

We don’t need to “try to imagine”, we just need to wait a bit and watch Walt’s reanimated corpse and army of undead lawyers come out swinging for those “mice in the general style of Mickey Mouse”.

>>bigiai+dk
Intellectual property and copyright are entirely different, and you'd be come after by Disney for making those kinds of images with or without AI. I wish people in the fight against AI would stop trotting this argument out, it muddies stronger arguments against it.

>>tidenl+8k1
Copyright is a subset of intellectual property.

Intellectual property generally includes copyright, patents, trademark, and trade secrets, though there are broader claims such as likeness, celebrity rights, moral rights (e.g., droit d'auteur in French/EU law), and probably a few others since I began writing this comment (the scope seems to be increasing, generally).

I suspect you intended to distinguish trademark and copyright.