[jazzyjackson]

machine generated works cannot be copyrighted, but its a legal gray area as to whether creating the images violates copyright (in my opinion it is not fair use, as it displaces the market value of the work it is a derivative of)

[nadermx]

But the use of each work is very minuscule in sum and is generally, if not always, an original new work. How is a Mona Lisa in the style of Van Gho a violation of the copyright of Mona Lisa or Van Gho? It is a new and unique work. Makes it a legitimate use. In fact, in certain cases the entire work can be used and is considered fair use.

[sebastiennight]

Americans do pronounce his name "Venn Gho", but it is spelled Van Gogh!

Interestingly enough, there are many pronunciations of Van Gogh's name [1] (we French people say "Gog" rhyming with "dog"), but the rarest one is probably the one from his own native Brabant dialect.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_van_Gogh#cite_note-5

[nadermx]

I was more so talking about Van Gho the music artist[0], mixed with a bit of Mona Lisa the band[1]. But to each their own

[0] https://www.facebook.com/VanGhoMusic/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_(band)

[sebastiennight]

LOL... I learned something today!

[jazzyjackson]

I agree that images produced are not derivatives of any particular copyrighted work, instead they are derivative of all copyrighted work. I don't think OpenAI et al should get a free pass for finding a way to rip everyone off at once, but it's certainly a new frontier in law, hence the gray area.

[nadermx]

Well, in copyright law there is the De Minimis Concept, which kinda sorta allows, as you put it, OpenAI to "rip everyone off", despite everyone holding what they originally had.