[radley]

The context is generating images based explicitly on intellectual property. The problem is that most AI image generators allow IP as terms and/or they consumed IP to build their model, so they will return IP-based artworks.

If you're a business using the image and used IP terms in your prompt, then you'd need permissions from both parties (Disney, McDonald's) before you post it. If you're writing about AI rights, or making a comment on social media, then less likely you'll need it.

If your prompt was a cartoon mouse gets food poison at a fast food joint, you're off the hook. But if it returns Mickey Mouse at McDonalds, then the AI generator is still on the hook for using IP as a source.

At least, that's where this is all going.

[Workaccount2]

>At least, that's where this is all going.

Not really, because that would still be a loss for artists. Where they are trying to steer the ship is to "training on IP is copyright violation".

Artists are looking to stop AI from taking their jobs. An AI generator with an IP filter on it's output will still very much be a threat to their work.

[archontes]

I agree that interested parties are trying to steer the ship there. I just don't see the legal arguments that will get them there.

Given the fact that images are transmitted to a person in a manner that doesn't violate copyright (and even if they are, the transmitter, not receiver is guilty of infringement), training an AI is not something that copyright law limits.

The AI weights that result are about the farthest thing from a derivative work, as the weights as a separate object, don't seem to contain the slightest remnant of the original work.