| Note: I am not an expert :) > How does this work from a technological standpoint? There have only been 27 Pixar feature films. From the start, imaging AI's capability has been largely around style transfer. You can take an artist or define a lump group of inspiration, dump it in as a prompt and get a fairly high chance of a good-looking image. > Why Disney-Pixar in particular? Why not Dreamworks, Illuminatiom entertainmemt... You tell me. Visually I don't mind Illumination or Dreamworks, but technically they keep their light under a bushel. I do have a bit of background in rendering and 3D CG, and while I loathe Disney/Pixar they generally do a good job presenting technically-impressive frames with well-choreographed shots. > Is this just an attempt to ruin the reputation of the Pixar brand? No? Pixar exists, as a company. Same goes for Disney. They've had their content mocked, copied and even used as hate speech for decades now. A lot of people just reach for it because it's recognizable branding. > Is there even any interpretation that would allow this to be seen as anything different than industrial style IP infringement? Given that it's noncommercial, yes. There's a good arguement that all of these images are derivative parody works protected by Fair Use, AI-generated or not. The AI-generation legality part is yet-to-be-decided-on, but it will probably err on the side of model freedom. I wager it's too late to draft a bill that changes things this far in the game. |
Yeah, by actual PEOPLE not corporations. Even then you aren't allowed to use copyrighted trade marks what the hell??
>There's a good arguement that all of these images are derivative parody works protected by Fair Use, AI-generated or not.
That doesn't even make sense.
>The AI-generation legality part is yet-to-be-decided-on, but it will probably err on the side of model freedom. I wager it's too late to draft a bill that changes things this far in the game.
HmmŲ so let's see, it's the entirety of the worlds entertainment and media industry, estimated annual revenue (globally) 2.32 trillion U.S. dollars vs. some startup run by jewish guy that employs less than 400 people.
I agree tho that by now the cat is probably out of the bag and that people will most likely just create their own shitty little models at home and that this will only ever get easier as compute gets cheaper and cheaper.
But do people even realize, do they have the brainpower to understand that AI doesn't mean "independent consciouss mind living in a machine somewhere discovering ideas on its own", that it's in fact much more mundane than that and that in reality what all these models essentially are is just a distributed compression algorithms for digital media?