> Harry Potter is a trademark. It protects and distinguishes identity and authority. Perhaps I should have said Darth Vader, then - the point is you can copyri

> Harry Potter is a trademark. It protects and distinguishes identity and authority. Perhaps I should have said Darth Vader, then - the point is you can copyright a character independent of the copyright on a book's text, and the trademark on the series name, and the fact that broad concepts like "black-clad masked evil overlord" are uncopyrightable. And that copyright can persist even if you transform a book character into an engraved coffee mug. > I'm not seeing an ethical difference from any of this. Or did I miss the point? The difference is: If a person says "Stable diffusion is to its copyrighted training data as an audio description is to a painting" or "Stable diffusion is to its copyrighted training data as the concept of boy wizards is to harry potter" they would probably say it's ethically fine. If a person says "Stable diffusion is to its copyrighted training data as a photograph of a painting is to the painting" or "Stable diffusion is to its copyrighted training data as video lecture is to a single image in its slides" they might well say it's not ethical.