Once a model has been trained the original data isn't used for shit, the output the model generates isn't your artwork anymore it isn't really anybody's.

Sure, with some careful prompts you can get the model to output something in your style fairly closely, but the outputting image isn't yours. It's whatever the model conjured up based on the prompt in your style. The resulting image is still original of the model

It's akin to someone downloading your art, tracing it over and over again till they learn the style and then going off to draw non-traced original art just in your style

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"You don't understand, it's not infringement because we put it in a blender first" is why AI "art" keeps taking Ls in court.

[–] ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Care to point to those Ls in court? Because as far as I'm aware they are mostly still ongoing and no legal consensus has been established.

It's also a bit disingenuous to boil his argument down to what you did, as that's obviously not what he said. You would most likely agree that a human would produce transformative works even when basing most of their knowledge on that of another (such as tracing).

Ideas are not copyrightable, and neither are styles. You could use that understanding of another's work to create forgeries of their work, but hence why there exist protections against forgeries. But just making something in the style of another does not constitute infringement.

EDIT:

This was pretty much the only update on a currently running lawsuit I could find: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-judge-finds-flaws-artists-lawsuit-against-ai-companies-2023-07-19/

"U.S. District Judge William Orrick said during a hearing in San Francisco on Wednesday that he was inclined to dismiss most of a lawsuit brought by a group of artists against generative artificial intelligence companies, though he would allow them to file a new complaint."

"The judge also said the artists were unlikely to succeed on their claim that images generated by the systems based on text prompts using their names violated their copyrights.

"I don't think the claim regarding output images is plausible at the moment, because there's no substantial similarity" between images created by the artists and the AI systems, Orrick said."

Hard to call that an L, so I'm eagerly awaiting them.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Biggest L: that shit ain’t copyrightable. A doodle I fart out on a sticky pad has more legal protection.

[–] ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That's true, but the reason behind that is reasonable. There has been no human intervention, and so like photos taken by animals, they hold no copyright. But that's not what you should be doing anyways, a tool must be used as part of a process, not as *the process*.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

A court saying "nobody owns this" is closer to the blender argument than the ripoff argument.

[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Go fuck yourself AI bitch :3