zlacker

You've made some errors in reasoning.

First, there is a legal definition of a "derivative work" and there is an artistic notion of a "derivative work". If the two of us both draw a picture of the Statue of Liberty, artistically we have both derived the drawing based on the original statue. However, neither of these drawings in relation to the original sculpture nor the other drawing is legally considered a derivative work.

Let's think about a cartoonish caricature of Joe Biden. What "makes up" Joe Biden?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRu0lUxxVF4

To what extent are these "constituent parts" present in every image of Joe Biden? All of them? Is the latent space not something that is instead hidden in all images of Joe Biden? Can an image of Joe Biden be made by anyone that is not derived from these "high order" characteristics of what is recognizable as Joe Biden across a number of different renderings from disparate individuals?

>>willia+(OP)
I can draw Biden, yes, but SD can only draw Biden by deriving it's output from the images on which it was trained. This is a simple tautology, because SD cannot draw Biden without having been trained on that data.

SD both creates derivative works and also sometimes creates pixel level copies from portions of the trained data.

>>IncRnd+SB
Yes, and we are now using the artistic definition of “derived” and not the legal definition.

You cannot copyright “any image that resembles Joe Biden”.

>>IncRnd+SB
Can you draw Biden without ever having seen him or a picture of him? So,why is it that you are not deriving but SD is?

>>willia+7E
This isn't about what can be copyrighted but that there are copyrighted images being used without following the legal requirements.