> "Legal doesn't always mean ethical." Right now it's not given that it's legal. Most people are assuming that it's ok under fair use, but until the SCOTUS rul

> "Legal doesn't always mean ethical." Right now it's not given that it's legal. Most people are assuming that it's ok under fair use, but until the SCOTUS rules on it it's an unknown. Given the potential economic impact on the original artist, the mechanical nature of the transformation and the fact that extracting the style of an artist's work could be deemed substantive, fair use is not in the least bit a slam dunk. One could argue that use of this sort of AI robs the original artist of the fruits of their labour, neutering copyright protections, and produces works that substitute for the originals, without adding any creative input other than commanding the output from a machine. Given the intent of copyright law, judges would likely be receptive to this argument.