7 ms·
I suspect in legal terms, if you feed copyrighted images into a computer program, the output is a derivative work, AI or no. As you say, some of the output im
by BorisTheBrave 6y ago
I suspect in legal terms, if you feed copyrighted images into a computer program, the output is a derivative work, AI or no.
As you say, some of the output images are clearly of specific characters, which turns this from "legally grey" into "definitely not public domain".
- klipt 6y agoDepends how creative the AI is. Human artists are trained on copyrighted images too.
- lloeki 6y agoGood artists copy, great artists steal? This is the whole conundrum of creation and copyright. Every creative work is protected by copyright yet every creative work is the sum of unconscious derivations to varying degrees of something an author has perceived, creative works existing ex nihilo are at best vanishingly rare; personally I'm not even sure they exist, I'm leaning more towards we're just mistaking unusually big jumps of derivations/combinations of those for ex nihilo creative works. We readily recognise "influences" of great artists (whether it is music, literature, painting...). Doesn't mean creative work should not be protected, but drawing the line of infringing vs not is by definition extremely blurry and subjective. That talk is as relevant as ever: https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_laws_that_choke_creativity https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_laws_that_choke_cr...