> Should an artist pay Getty for leafing through their images or visiting a museum and closely studying? Getty has chosen the forum (UK courts) quite carefully

> Should an artist pay Getty for leafing through their images or visiting a museum and closely studying? Getty has chosen the forum (UK courts) quite carefully. The precedents favor them substantially. In 2012 there was a case where a photo was found violating copyrights because the photographer independently took pictures of Westminster bridge and reproduced a similar photo. Basically the case says you're violating copyrights if you're "inspired" by a photo and make a similar one intentionally. See eg. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=57171429-4dea-425d-ac59-5c92cbf63941 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=57171429-4dea... for details. Pretty sure that case would have been laughed out of court in the US, but historically the UK courts have been pretty strict in interpreting the scope of copyright protection. So even if you're successful in arguing for "the AI has a digital consciousness and is basically a human" analogy, case law in the UK still doesn't allow you to do that. I personally think this is ridiculous though, but unfortunately that's the status quo (in the UK where SD is being sued).