> From the model's perspective, it's not a distinct motif, that's the thing (and, it struggles quite a lot to reproduce the actual mark). The model doesn't have

> From the model's perspective, it's not a distinct motif, that's the thing (and, it struggles quite a lot to reproduce the actual mark). The model doesn't have any concept of what a "watermark" is. The court delivers the judgement, not the model. If courts can find against musicians whilst accepting they 'unconsciously' plagiarised key elements of a song in their own completely different song played by different musicians based on maybe hearing it in the background somewhere, they can certainly find against the creators of a model which has a sufficiently strong and obvious dependency on Getty IP they imported to output reasonably close approximations of Getty watermarks.