4 ms·
I believe that a further restriction of fair use to what is produced by a generative AI would also give a lot of tools for large copyright holders (e.g. Disney)
by shagie 4y ago
I believe that a further restriction of fair use to what is produced by a generative AI would also give a lot of tools for large copyright holders (e.g. Disney) for suing and removing fan art for anything that "is in the style of" or "makes use of the same characters" including uses that would previously be considered beneath their notice and thus not worth their time (the amount the lawyers would cost combined with the difficulty in doing it).
The lawyers won't "mess it up" but rather that the large copyright holders will be able to use this to enforce these restrictions on human generated fan art just as easily as they (and other humans) will be able to enforce it on generative AI.
While it won't be possible to excise the idea of "draw like Disney" from someone's brain, it will be possible to sue the creator to remove the work.
- quadcore 4y ago"is in the style of" or "makes use of the same characters" No because in that case you're talking about, there is at least an artist. There is no artist for a generated picture - closer than the training set.
- shagie 4y agoPublishing an image always has a human and has always been the issue. Doodles, personal art notebooks, photoshopped images - those have never been things that have run afoul of copyright... until they are published. A person doodling on some paper or running stable diffusion and using it as a background image for their desktop - these have never been at issue before and from a legal point of view are likely very much the same.
- zirgs 4y agoMaking styles copyrightable would be insane.