3 ms·
Trademark rather than copyright but yeah, a plausible explanation is that Adobe played it safe and avoided pissing off litigious companies.
by reedciccio 4y ago
Trademark rather than copyright but yeah, a plausible explanation is that Adobe played it safe and avoided pissing off litigious companies.
- mftb 4y agoAlso their customers are you know... artists.
- sebzim4500 4y agoLong term, if Adobe is clearly worse than the competition as a result of being legally/ethically conservative they will lose users. They will get a lot of likes on twitter but companies will not pay for a firefly subscription if it's worse than Stable Diffusion.
- pmoriarty 4y agoIt's not like no artists use Midjourney. I'm an artist myself, absolutely love Midjourney, and have absolutely no problem with it being trained on any and all art -- just like human artists have been doing for millenia.
- shagie 4y agoCopyright is the proper form of IP for fictional characters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_fictional_characters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_ficti...
- Terretta 4y agoOr trademark. But in both cases, artists are particularly well protected in making artistic commentary. Artists' tools should permit fair use, and disagreement can be directed at the artist.
- shagie 4y agoCommentary - yes. However, if it is found that the model itself is not sufficiently transformative and including copyrighted fictional characters in it is seen as an infringing derivative work, then even though the output of it may be used in non-infringing ways then litigious companies would still have an argument about copyright infringement on the model. Until that is settled, its likely that Adobe is taking the "we're not going to deal with any licensed properties in the model to avoid any lawsuits."