2 ms·
>This seems too vague/ill-defined. In what way is the entry "not his own work"? Using tool X or Y in the generation of digital artwork doesn't make the work bel
by esperent 4y ago
>This seems too vague/ill-defined. In what way is the entry "not his own work"? Using tool X or Y in the generation of digital artwork doesn't make the work belong to the tool
It's up to the judges to decide, no doubt. Every possible rule (including laws in a legal system) will at some point encounter edge cases. That's why we have judges.
In this case, I expect most judges will feel that having an AI generate art is not the same as having a human draw art using a drawing program, which seems reasonable.
- fjkdlsjflkds 4y agoYes. And judges (in the context of the legal system) have generally decided that non-human animals and machines are not entitled to authorship (and copyright) rights, and I don't see "stable diffusion" changing this. So, even if you use such tools... as far as the law (in its current form) is concerned, you are still the author of the work. In the context of an art competition, I can see how it would be useful to restrict the use of such tools (as you state), but then it should be done explicitly, rather than through generic/vague "you should make the work yourself" clauses (and, again, it might not be possible to effectively enforce such rules).