Curiously how your interpretaion of law still is not working to forbid ai or ai training, is it. The conclusion is, that it does not work this way. Copyright is not the way to fight ai. It's a dead end.
Preference for human work is a better angle.
Viewing post in Suggestion about AI games.
Curiously how your interpretaion of law still is not working to forbid ai or ai training, is it.
The typical defense of AI art is that it’s not derivative art but wholly original. Which I think is bullshit, and you seem to think is bullshit, and a whole bunch of other people think is bullshit. But we’re not the ones with the big army of lawyers and we don’t have the courts in our pocket, so the AI companies win. For now. Laws can change, and there’s a lot of anti-AI sentiment in the streets.
One confounding factor is that it’s often incredibly hard to prove where a particular AI image came from. It’s like pollution: we know who’s doing it, we know it’s killing people, but it’s often impossible to match up a single death with a single polluter. Which is why we have separate laws for pollution and for murder, and why it makes more sense to go after the training than after the final product.
At other times, finding the source of an AI image isn’t hard at all.
I was talking about the creation of an ai model. The thing an ai uses to create output from a prompt. Training this thing is ruled derivative by courts already.
Your example is of a real person. If that person has significance to the model, than the model would know how that person looks. Creating an image that looks similar to one of the training images is of course possible. What do you think would happen, if you prompt for the Mona Lisa. This is trivial.
The typical defense of AI art is that it’s not derivative art but wholly original.
From what I gather, it's more a discussion what original means and the notion that all art is derivative. It's a trivially true claim. You do not grow up in a vacuum. You experience things. You cannot paint a tree if you have never seen one and do not even know that such a thing exists. You would construct and extrapolate it from known things, like a shrubbery. And that's how it was in old pictures, when people tried painting animals they never saw. We do stand on the shoulders of giants.
The oldest art you can find is probably cave paintings. What did people paint? Things they saw. How is that "original"?
But this is a philosophical discussion.
Of more practical implication is, that arguing against ai with copyright is fruitless. There are a lot of citations of law suits opened. But what's the outcome so far? The ruling that it is derivative. So accept that and move on to better arguments, if you need justification to avoid ai.
I do not need justifcation, because I made it a matter of taste. I do not like ai in general and prefer human work. I do not need any legal reasons that are already failing. Or arguments about energy, where I personally tried how false these claims are. But this also allows me to appreciate the occasional indie game with ai usage. Just like I occassional play a platfomer, although I dislike the genre.