It seems like this article makes a basic copyright mistake. I don't see any evidence that these are " reproductions" of source material like since no source ima

It seems like this article makes a basic copyright mistake. I don't see any evidence that these are " reproductions" of source material like since no source image is linked to compare. Instead, these are derivative works. We already have a flourishing culter of derivitave works, such as fan art that exist in various shades of legal greyness. Some derivative works are fair use, some are not. The position of the Author here seems to be that generative AI should not be capable of creating any derivitave works, or should only be able to do so it it can accurately identify which are fair use and which aren't (which seems like an impossibly tall bar.) This stance seem like a giant attack on fair use that significantly expands the power of copyright. To me, the takeaway from this is different. This makes clear that there is currently a risk when using AI generated art that you could end up unintentionally creating and publishing a derivative work unintentionally and thus without evaluating if that work constitues fair use.