> In one case it's obvious the product is the original image, in the other it's a derivative that may or may not be sufficiently different to be protected under

> In one case it's obvious the product is the original image, in the other it's a derivative that may or may not be sufficiently different to be protected under fair use. right, so if it's a completely original work let's clear out the training set and let's see if it can do it without it no? so the output is a product of the input... a derivative work and if you run it again it produces exactly the same thing? (sans artificial random injection) sounds like a lossy compression function to me!