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.
You shouldn't be able to, but that's exactly what Google did with their book scanning and the courts said "but Google are the good guys so it's ok this time".
I mean, if I was working on something right now, if I published to Youtube it wouldn't be eligible for monetization because I don't have enough subscribers. Youtube says certain content is against guidelines for monetization - essentially - if you get an id claim or a warning that its ineligible. Yet the ads still run on the video. You're not getting the money on your own original work but Jimmy Fallon and the media mafia can post all sorts of "violent content" that might be "sensitive for viewers" and they split the ad revenue. You don't have 1000 subscribers? Youtube still runs ads and makes money off of your intellectual property, but you don't get a cut. So your hard work doesn't earn shit. Even if you gain monetization...you still make a pittance on it.
45 percent for fucking hosting.