I have seen a lot of articles and social media pushes to stop AI image creation because it can be trained to the style of a specific artist. It's constantly about how the poor artist won't be able to make mo ey because the AI can do their art for them.
I doubt this. Artists have multiple styles and are more well known for the story within their pictures. If I hired an artist who could repeat that style and do something similar then it's ok?
This makes no sense. Instead, I bet it's a big business trying to protect itself. Disney has a full department that decides on styles for art and presentations. Genie must look this way in all pictures and all artists must repeat it perfectly. Only Disney can sell products with this genie or anything close to it.
If I had AI make Genie doing something and then printed that out, there is very little Disney could do to stop it. This is the music industry vs Napster all over again.
Kudos for using a genie as an example, because this genie is most definitely out of the bottle.
AI producing similar, but legally distinct, works finesses copywrite law as written. You don't get to yell 'theft' when the digitally produced work is distinct from what it's based on.
AI is absolutely standing on the shoulders of giants-- who are all human artists, but much like there are now chess programs that are stronger at the game than any human, AI art can't be stopped. Art is forever altered by this development, and crying 'theft' doesn't make that any less so.
Adapt or die.
In the same way that Gaben said "Piracy is a service issue" AI art is similar. Instead of using AI art as a tool to improve their technical prowess, they would just decry it as theft, same as piracy.
Agreed. We will see a bunch of services that make money from this and no one will be bothered.