[BestGuess]

>but it is still fundamentally just copying, pasting, and then deforming lines together

That's called "photobashing", very common to see used by concept artists. Also, it's fair use.

So now you've got a bigger problem in that almost all concept artists are engaged in theft I suppose? Since they are "only" copying, pasting, and then deforming things together?

[wredue]

Funny how you declare photo bashing as “fair use” but a cursory glance at the actual legality shows that you’re lying and that it is also in a somewhat ambiguous grey area at the moment, with lawsuits pending.

It is also massively frowned upon in art sharing circles.

[BestGuess]

>but a cursory glance at the actual legality shows that you’re lying

[[citation needed]]

>a somewhat ambiguous grey area at the moment

That's a funny way of admitting I'm right.

>It is also massively frowned upon in art sharing circles.

Who gives a shit? What part of "commonly used in concept art", and among professionals in drafting and conceptual stages in general, do you deliberately seek to not understand?

You mentally unwell or are you just an internet troll?

[wredue]

Here’s an article specifically on the legality of photo bashing:

https://www.owe.com/is-fan-art-legal-fair-use-what-about-mas...

Your “carte Blanche fair use” claim is nonsense. Copyright owners can, in fact, today stop derivative works that they know about, including photobashing.

By your own admission, AI is barely doing photobashing, so is very obviously not creating original works and is subject to copyright claims.

It gets tiring listening to HN AI enthusiasts pretending that AI is an actual comparison to human intelligence when it’s actually demonstrably a specialized search engine that does little more than copy and paste. If this were not the case, then:

-An AI would be able to feed itself without becoming shit tier nonsense

-An ai would be able to create materials not discernible from its training material

Neither case is true for any AI, including diffusion models.

[BestGuess]

>Your “carte Blanche fair use” claim is nonsense

Since you seem to not be aware of this: Fair use is an affirmative defense. By definition nothing I have written is therefore "carte blanche" as no defense of fair use can be ever said to be "carte blanche". This is pure sophistry on your part and transparently so.

>Here’s an article specifically on the legality of photo bashing

And mashups, photobashing, and many things likewise, remain legal and with fair use defenses in the courts as precedent. You continue to reach to any dishonesty or deflection including projection to avoid dealing with any of the points anyone has brought up.

[wredue]

Ad hominem usually demonstrates you know that you’re wrong.

I am not the one arguing that a computer has thoughts, feelings and intent as you are here. It is you that is deliberately attempting to misunderstand through ignorance, lies, and insult.