|
|
|
|
|
|
by miohtama
1185 days ago
|
|
|
It’s explicitly allowed to create new based on photographs, assuming the resulting work is not similar with the original > For example: if they base their painting on an oft photographed or painted location, generic subject matter, or an image that has been taken by numerous photographers they would likely not be violating copyright law. > However: if they create their painting, illustration or other work of art from a specific photograph or if your photography is known for a particular unique style, and their images are readily identifiable with you as the photographer, and an artist copies one of your photographic compositions or incorporates your photographic style into their painting or illustration they may be liable for copyright infringement. https://www.thelawtog.com/blogs/news/what-do-i-do-if-someone... Because AI rarely recreates images 1:1 it is unlikely the violate any copyrights. |
|
|
Seems pretty cut and paste to me. If it has trained on my images and then uses that trained dataset to generate new images those images are in violation. Using training sets that include unlicensed copyrighted works requires attribution and licensing. TO be legal otherwise the end user/AI company would have to be able to prove in a court of law that without training on my copyrighted work it would have still generated that specific image which I can't see the users/company being able to do.