3 ms·
Being inspired isn't against the law. copying is. it'd be one thing if this conversation could be had with useful terminology that's actually on point. instead
by freejazz 3y ago
Being inspired isn't against the law. copying is. it'd be one thing if this conversation could be had with useful terminology that's actually on point. instead we have you, insisting that there is no creative process, there is only experiencing other art and inevitably copying (because apparently you think that's the only thing humans can do!). It's all so telling. Yet its tragic because so many here don't even realize it. I'm sad for your inability to engage with creativity and creative acts.
- mlyle 3y agoI think a lot of the discussion is where the balance of the creativity lies when a human uses a model (trained on other artistic works) to create art. Is the result a copy, or perhaps a derivative work of the art in the training set? Does the person using the model have authorship of the result? Was it even okay to use the art to train the model and then share the resulting weights? Are the resultant weights protected by copyright themselves? I suspect the actual answers we'll come to on these topics will be full of nuance.