AI Art Copyright

Depends how creative the AI is. Human artists are trained on copyrighted images too.

Unlike Copilot, DALL-E et al. don't produce verbatim copies of trained data.Copying ideas and styles has always been a fundamental part of art history, so an artwork right holder might have a hard time successfuly sueing a user for the user's generated image looking similar to the right holder's artwork.

A human is still entering the prompt to generate the possibly copyrighted image/text. I don't think copyright law should care about the implementation. It's ok to copy a style if you use paint brushes or photo shop. But not ok if you use a statistic model?

It doesn't copy verbatim, neither does it copy parts. Sure, if you request "Sunflowers by Van Gogh" you will get something very close to Sunflowers by Van Gogh. That's because Van Gogh produced several similar works with sunflowers, because models are notoriously overfit on those, but more importantly because you asked for it specifically; you could have asked Google and get unlimited copies of Sunflowers that are much more precise. Good luck accidentally describing Su

Then the Stable Diffusion model should hold the copyright. And using generative models doesn't make you any more of an artist that commissioning a human does.

The issue here is that the AI model itself is a derivative work.Further, they will very much recreate things the’ve seen many examples of. Recreating “Mona Lisa” isn’t a problem, but recreating “Iron Man” is. Individual artists may not know how to prompt the system to recreate their work, but looking at the training sets is going to help quite a bit.

It's only clear that training is a violation of copyright if you have a layman's understanding of how training works. There are no images stored in image models, just vectors that represent pixel relationships. You may call this fancy compression, but the ship runs aground if you try to "compress" a small set of images with a transformer - you just will get random noisy junk on the output.Artists have a much firmer legal ground to stand on if they go after model output, bu

Is there any reason we shouldn’t view diffusion models as any other tool? I can infringe copyright with photoshop too… even accidentally. If I generate original work with either that seems like fair game.I imagine with the right prompt one could coax out a copywritten image even if it hadn’t ever seen it before

If a model is trained on illegally obtained copyrighted material, are the images it produces stolen?

You might want to learn how the models work before making inflammatory comments.To simplify the entire concept: Imagine you were an alien. You decide to work as an artist on earth. So you go on this thing the Humans call 'the internet', view millions of images & works of art, then start creating images & art pieces of your own based on the underlying rules you've gleaned from those millions of images you've viewed, without in any way keeping or saving a single copy