[popohauer]

It's going to be interesting to see how the lawsuits against OpenAI by content creators plays out. If the courts rule that AI generated content is a derivative work of all the content it was trained on it could really flip the entire gen AI movement on its head.

[luma]

If it were a derivative work[1] (and sufficiently transformational) then it's allowed under current copyright law and might not be the slam dunk ruling you were hoping for.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

[kevingadd]

"sufficiently transformational" is carrying a lot of water here. At minimum it would cloud the issue and might expose anyone using AI to lawsuits where they'd potentially have to defend each generated image.

[ufocia]

Sufficiently transformational only applies to copyrightability, but AI works are not copyrightable under current US law, so it's a non-issue.

[popohauer]

Oh, interesting, I didn't realize that's how it worked. Thanks for the additional context around this. Guess it's not as upending as I thought it could be.

[ufocia]

Not if it is AI generated. So far only humans can be original enough to warrant copyrights, at least in the US .

BTW, the right to prepare derivative works belongs to the copyright holder of the reference work.

I doubt that many AI works are in fact derivative works. Sure, some bear enough similarity, but a gross majority likely doesn't.

[torginus]

My biggest fear is that the big players will drop a few billion dollars to silence the copyright holders with power go away, and new rules are put in place that will make open-source models that can't do the same essentially illegal.

[int_19h]

If the courts do rule that way, I would expect a legislative race between different countries to amend the relevant laws. Visual generative AI is just too lucrative a thing.

[BeFlatXIII]

…then I'll keep enjoying my Stable Diffusion and pirated models.