[pjonesdotca]

Because the models are not creating a 1:1 replacement of the original work.

As mentioned before "style" is not something subject to copyright and the model creates a model of that style. The process of finetuning a model generally means that one would not want to recreate the original images as that would overfit it and render it, essentially useless.

When it comes to code, there is a higher chance of getting a one-to-one clone of the input as the options used in creating an algorithm, or even a simple function are dramatically reduced imo.

[pessimizer]

> Because the models are not creating a 1:1 replacement of the original work.

Since when did that become a requirement? If those are the rules now, then cutting the final credits is good enough to start torrenting movies.

> When it comes to code, there is a higher chance of getting a one-to-one clone of the input as the options used in creating an algorithm, or even a simple function are dramatically reduced imo.

If you're going to consider each function within a larger work as an individual work, that makes the 1:1 replacement claim more dubious. In order to recognizably imitate a style, one or more features of that style have to be recognizably copied, although no single area of the illustration would have to be. A function is a facet of a complete program just like recognizable features of a style are facets of each work an artist produces. If it helps, consider an artist's style as their own personal utility library.

[CuriouslyC]

If I made a scene for scene remake of a Disney movie, with an ugly woman for a princess and social commentary/satirical injections, it would be defensible as fair use in court.

[noobermin]

That's because it is parody, which is explicitly defined as fair-use. NNs are not only used for parody.

[dwringer]

I think when it comes to art, less than one-to-one clones are often still functionally equivalent in the mind of many viewers. Stylistic and thematic content is often just as, if not more, important than the exact composition. But currently the law does agree that this is not copyrightable. And sometimes independent artists profit and make a name for themselves copping other styles, and I think that's great.

But could it be considered an intellectual and sociological denial-of-service attack when it's scaled to the point where a machine can crank out dozens of derivative works per minute? I'm not sure this is a situation at all comparable to human artists making derivative works. Those involve long periods of concentration, focus, and reflection by a conscious human agent to pull off, thus in some sense furthering to the intellectual development of humanity and fostering a deeper appreciation for the source work. The machine does none of that; it's sort of just a photocopier one step removed in hyperspace, copying some of the artists' abstractions instead of their brush strokes.

[leereeves]

> when it comes to code, there is a higher chance of getting a one-to-one clone of the input.

I'm not so sure. There's a generated image in the article that I think looks enough like Wonder Woman to cause a lawsuit.

That's just one of a handful of images in the article, and doesn't seem to have been chosen for its similarity to Wonder Woman.

[mensetmanusman]

Code is hundreds to many thousands of lines. A line of code is analogous to one color pixel in digital art.

[com2kid]

Depends on which lines of code.

I have written projects where I'd consider a handful of lines of code to be the core central tenant of the entire project that everything else is built up around. Copy those lines and everything else is scaffolding that falls out naturally from the development process.

[melagonster]

but one line similar code is easier to find. this is because copilot work in one line/small function level.