Right, people can claim whatever contribution they made. Redrawing a popular photo means the drawing is yours but the composition is not. Anyone else can still use or draw that photo. Same deal for cribbing off what comes out when you just type a sentence into Stable Diffusion. You could claim the sentence - except copyright doesn’t protect such minimal and trivial effort.
These systems can take art as an input. Image-to-image really ought to be commonplace, with artists blobbing out rough thumbnails, so the machine can fill in the details and fudge the anatomy. But for some reason all that gets traction are the dinguses using plain text and going ‘I made this.’
I definitely do not care enough about copyright for that to be an objection to this technology.
On the other hand if these people expect protections for what the robot spits out, they can take a flying fuck at the moon.
All “AI” works are public domain by default unless a person can prove that they used “AI” as part of creative workflow and just as a reference.
Right, people can claim whatever contribution they made. Redrawing a popular photo means the drawing is yours but the composition is not. Anyone else can still use or draw that photo. Same deal for cribbing off what comes out when you just type a sentence into Stable Diffusion. You could claim the sentence - except copyright doesn’t protect such minimal and trivial effort.
These systems can take art as an input. Image-to-image really ought to be commonplace, with artists blobbing out rough thumbnails, so the machine can fill in the details and fudge the anatomy. But for some reason all that gets traction are the dinguses using plain text and going ‘I made this.’