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.
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.