> OpenAI is the entity redistributing the work It's difficult to say really. If I essentially encode knowledge of something then can recall and remix at will,

> OpenAI is the entity redistributing the work It's difficult to say really. If I essentially encode knowledge of something then can recall and remix at will, am I redistributing the exact work or the knowledge of it? Yes, it is capable of producing a close to exact replica, if not the exact same input image byte-for-byte, but I find it difficult to say OpenAI is willfully redistributing copyrighted work in a whole like you would with torrenting a movie or right-click saving an image from Google where you are copying the intellectual property 1:1. Opening this Pandora's box could have large implications on a lot of creative work that could cause artists to be unable to work if taken to the end conclusion: you cannot create any creative work that has a talking mouse if you have knowledge of Mickey Mouse existing because you have been tainted (similar to whiteroom re-creations but now any sufficiently large copyrighted figure causes a deadlock condition for all derivative ore even similar topics). Is Ratatouille derative of Mickey Mouse? Ehhh, well they are both talking rodents. They both have cartoon faces. You can certainly draw parallels between them but they aren't the same character. Is Mickey with a chef hat infringing on Ratatouille? The trademark law, to my knowledge, is asking would someone be tricked or misled into believing you are the other guys. I think that is applicable here where someone drawing a talking mouse isn't infringing as long as it cannot be mistaken for Mickey Mouse, which again would be the fault of the person inducing the creation and not the tool that allowed it to happen. Where does "inspired by" / derived from the encoded knowledge turn into outright exploitation of copyrighted work? There's certainly _a_ line but I find it difficult to define it at it being encoded into knowledge of it existing.