The point I'm trying to make is a point of clarification as you seem to have a misunderstanding of what transformative means w.r.t. Fair Use since your post [1]

The point I'm trying to make is a point of clarification as you seem to have a misunderstanding of what transformative means w.r.t. Fair Use since your post [1] talks about comparing the differences between the source work and the AI work to determine transformative. A derivative work is typically what the generative AI produces where you could see elements of an original work but there are changes (i.e. the source work but shaded purple). A transformative work may be literally the source work but used in a different context/purpose (i.e. a 5s clip of a 2h soccer game used to show proper throw-in technique as opposed to the original purpose of a sports game). In the big picture, I expect generative AI to replace stock imagery and in this area I think this court case throws a huge wrench into that. If you're licensing generative AI instead of licensing the source stock imagery this case is going to be cited as why what you've done is illegal. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35991914 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35991914