This is one of the most retarded takes I’ve seen on this yet. I can produce an image of Mickey Mouse in MS paint too, and it will be both original and a copyright violation. There’s no contradiction there.
If you produce an image of Mickey Mouse in Paint, it will not be a copyright violation unless you're literally copying-and-pasting an image created elsewhere. It could be a trademark violation, but people need to realise that there's more to IP law than copyright.
Mickey Mouse is protected under both trademark (which is perpetual) and copyright (which is supposed to expire). A lot of this is based on case law more than the actual statutes. There's more to it indeed.
It's also copyright violation as a derivative work.
You can't take Harry Potter and change all the names to Baldy Fotter with the exact same plot just because you rewrote it in your own words, unless protected under fair use (like if it was a farce mocking Rowling).
These idiots are using AI to create derivative works, then selling it on t-shirts which nixes the already ridiculous claim of fair use.
Over the weekend, Eric Bourdages, the Lead Character Artist on the popular video game Dead by Daylight, urged his followers to create and sell merchandise using the Disney-inspired images he created using Midjourney. “Someone steal these amazing designs to sell them on Mugs and T-Shirts, I really don’t care, this is AI art that’s been generated,” Bourdages wrote. “Legally there should be no recourse from Disney as according to the AI models TOS these images transcends copyright and the images are public domain.”
As I already explained previously, this guy is an idiot and doesn't know how copyright works. The "AI" software is just a tool, and he used that tool to deliberately infringe a copyright. It's no different than if you used photoshop to make disney shit and then claimed that Disney had to sue Adobe. Nope. Disney would sue YOU. The software isn't at fault.
It's the end of the year, there's no more election news to bitch about and the twats who don't celebrate christmas need something to kvetch about so they're promoting bunk fuel alternatives to pump and dump the stock (hydrogen bombs) and ethots.
No, that just explains why the left is losing its mind over AI art. I'm more dubious of the fact that we've had a run of several threads in quick succession covering said meltdown for days now. It feels inorganic.
AI "art" was recently made available to the public, and so some "artists" who made their livings selling low-brow smut are concerned that their audience is either too stupid to recognize the soulless result of AI generation, or they just won't care enough.
Its going to be so LIT in 15 years when no new art is created by humans anymore for AI to consume. Then in 20 years when its no longer taught in classrooms. Then in 25 years no one manufactures art supplies any longer due to the lack of consumers. What happens to life when artistic expression dies?
Rule 1 of successful parasitism: You don’t kill the host.
Digital art didn't stop painters, or sculpters, or woodworkers, or etc. It just meant even more of the masses had access to owning a piece of what was formerly an "elite" commodity.
I can still go to Walmart and buy disposable cameras that take about 30 pictures and have them developed. I can also order one of those cameras using a handheld device that will take 300000 pictures at much higher resolutions.
It will be interesting seeing Disney's response. Do they do their standard C&D routine or go lenient on these specific cases or use them as examples to ride the "Stop AI Art" bandwagon?
This is one of the most retarded takes I’ve seen on this yet. I can produce an image of Mickey Mouse in MS paint too, and it will be both original and a copyright violation. There’s no contradiction there.
If you produce an image of Mickey Mouse in Paint, it will not be a copyright violation unless you're literally copying-and-pasting an image created elsewhere. It could be a trademark violation, but people need to realise that there's more to IP law than copyright.
Mickey Mouse is protected under both trademark (which is perpetual) and copyright (which is supposed to expire). A lot of this is based on case law more than the actual statutes. There's more to it indeed.
It's also copyright violation as a derivative work.
You can't take Harry Potter and change all the names to Baldy Fotter with the exact same plot just because you rewrote it in your own words, unless protected under fair use (like if it was a farce mocking Rowling).
These idiots are using AI to create derivative works, then selling it on t-shirts which nixes the already ridiculous claim of fair use.
He seems very happy to do Disney's dirty work with the veneer of looking out for the little guy.
As I already explained previously, this guy is an idiot and doesn't know how copyright works. The "AI" software is just a tool, and he used that tool to deliberately infringe a copyright. It's no different than if you used photoshop to make disney shit and then claimed that Disney had to sue Adobe. Nope. Disney would sue YOU. The software isn't at fault.
Moot point. Disneys copyright claims and adjustments to the laws to benefit them are hilariously fraudulent anymore
Why do we have so many AI art threads this week? It's suspicious at this point.
Because leftoids are malding at the idea of not being able to charge exorbitant amounts of money for furry clown porn.
These ai art web sites are the internet's new favorite toy.
I for one welcome our new AI overlords.
It's the end of the year, there's no more election news to bitch about and the twats who don't celebrate christmas need something to kvetch about so they're promoting bunk fuel alternatives to pump and dump the stock (hydrogen bombs) and ethots.
No, that just explains why the left is losing its mind over AI art. I'm more dubious of the fact that we've had a run of several threads in quick succession covering said meltdown for days now. It feels inorganic.
AI "art" was recently made available to the public, and so some "artists" who made their livings selling low-brow smut are concerned that their audience is either too stupid to recognize the soulless result of AI generation, or they just won't care enough.
Make better art then and stop being jealous by shit made by puters
Its going to be so LIT in 15 years when no new art is created by humans anymore for AI to consume. Then in 20 years when its no longer taught in classrooms. Then in 25 years no one manufactures art supplies any longer due to the lack of consumers. What happens to life when artistic expression dies?
Rule 1 of successful parasitism: You don’t kill the host.
none of that is going to happen for a very large number of very obvious reasons.
Digital art didn't stop painters, or sculpters, or woodworkers, or etc. It just meant even more of the masses had access to owning a piece of what was formerly an "elite" commodity.
So you are both retarded and hate the poor.
Exactly, which is why the other stuff you mentioned won't happen.
Which is why SJWs kill so many companies.
I can still go to Walmart and buy disposable cameras that take about 30 pictures and have them developed. I can also order one of those cameras using a handheld device that will take 300000 pictures at much higher resolutions.
It will be interesting seeing Disney's response. Do they do their standard C&D routine or go lenient on these specific cases or use them as examples to ride the "Stop AI Art" bandwagon?