Given that "AI" training needs millions of books, papers and web pages, it is a derivative work of all those books. Humans cannot even read a fraction of that and still surpass "AI" in any creative and generative domain.
When it comes to fan art of Disney characters, the legal position is "Disney could sue you for that, but chooses not to as suing fans would be bad PR, don't do anything commercial with it though or they'll sue you for sure"
So - yes, as I understand things it can indeed be illegal even if a human does the learning.
Given that "AI" training needs millions of books, papers and web pages, it is a derivative work of all those books. Humans cannot even read a fraction of that and still surpass "AI" in any creative and generative domain.
"AI" is a smart, camouflaged photocopier.
Photocopiers are legal. And every piece of art that has ever been produced is derivative.
Photocopying books for example is in fact not legal. Same goes for redistribution of art u stole.
I dont care how you phrase it. Its no secret that art was stolen from artists. Image generation is thievery.
Is it the same if it’s a human doing the learning? If I spend my youth looking at art, I’d any work I then do “theft”?
When it comes to fan art of Disney characters, the legal position is "Disney could sue you for that, but chooses not to as suing fans would be bad PR, don't do anything commercial with it though or they'll sue you for sure"
So - yes, as I understand things it can indeed be illegal even if a human does the learning.
1 reply →
If you copy an artists style with extreme precision without their consent, yes.
2 replies →