|
|
|
|
|
by BestGuess
959 days ago
|
|
>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? |
|
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.