[andrewdubinsky]

We don't see the prompt used to generate these "copies". It could be they provided the image in question to work from. In which case it would be very similar, but not identical.

It's important to note, this is not a faithful representation once you look at it closely. The text is always mangled into nonsense and things like brands or logos are never close enough to be even a passing likeness.

This is no different from a painter using a photograph of a subject to create a portrait, which is subsequently sold.

Or recording a song on the radio to learn to play the guitar, then using that song as inspiration to write a new song.

That being said, I suspect they are removing all watermarked images from training databases right now.

[haswell]

> This is no different from a painter using a photograph of a subject to create a portrait, which is subsequently sold.

> Or recording a song on the radio to learn to play the guitar, then using that song as inspiration to write a new song.

I’d argue that it is very different from those things.

The AI software is not human, and the precedent set for painters and musicians is based on a foundation of human capability.

It’s no different in the same way a horse drawn carriage is no different from an F1 race car.