> In this case, it would seem a very key difference is that this is Art being consumed and Art being produced, with no different purpose. Sure, I mean, anyone

> In this case, it would seem a very key difference is that this is Art being consumed and Art being produced, with no different purpose. Sure, I mean, anyone can sit on the sidelines and imagine any sort of fantasy legal doctrines. The one you’re imagining would have the courts deciding the purpose of art works. In this case an example is easy. If someone uses Stable Diffusion to remove a person from the background of an image they are clearly using the tool for a separate purpose than copying Sarah Anderson’s works and making competing desk calendars. But I guess your silly argument is that the doctored photograph is a “picture” and Sarah Anderson made “pictures” and all pictures have the purpose of “being looked at” and you want courts to decide this based on this reasoning?