> The goal is to profit off of free human labor after all. this is too inflammatory in my opinion. - some works are in public domain - tech companies have pr

> The goal is to profit off of free human labor after all. this is too inflammatory in my opinion. - some works are in public domain - tech companies have profited from creators for a long time. I'm sure some arrangement could be made for profit sharing for artists who care about money, but it's too early for that (no profits, I'm sure most companies are losing money on AI art) - some artists care about art or fame more than money. Their art will not be devalued by AI, if anything, constant usage of their names in prompts is going to make them massively popular and direct people to source material or merch, which they may buy. - some artists are dead and don't care anymore. Their "estate" vulnerable to takeovers by "long lost but recently found" relatives, who don't care about art itself, only about money. Many such stories. One example, albeit not in paintings but in music is Jimi Hendrix Estate. They used to do copyright strikes on YouTube in order to remove fan-made compilations of rare material (cleaned up sound of live concerts, multiple sources mixed into one etc.), without intentions to ever release an alternative.