I listened to the oral arguments for this case and I’m not convinced this will have many if any implications at all for AI-generated artwork. The facts of the c

I listened to the oral arguments for this case and I’m not convinced this will have many if any implications at all for AI-generated artwork. The facts of the case just don’t bridge the gap between the alleged infringement here and what Stable Diffusion does. Andy Warhol used a particular photograph as a reference for a series of paintings, and the question presented by the Foundation appealing a loss in the 2nd Circuit to the Supreme Court is as follows: “This Court has repeatedly made clear that a work of art is "transformative" for purposes of fair use under the Copyright Act if it conveys a different "meaning[I or message" from its source material. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994); Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1183, 1202 (2021). In the decision below, the Second Circuit nonetheless held that a court is in fact forbidden from trying to "ascertain the intent behind or meaning of the works at issue." App. 22a-23a. Instead, the court concluded that even where a new work indisputably conveys a distinct meaning or message, the work is not transformative if it "recognizably deriv[es] from, and retain|s] the essential elements of, its source material." Id. at 24a. The question presented is: Whether a work of art is "transformative" when it conveys a different meaning or message from its source material (as this Court, the Ninth Circuit, and other courts of appeals have held), or whether a court is forbidden from considering the meaning of the accused work where it "recognizably derives] from" its source material (as the Second Circuit has held).”