|
Both GenAI and that database could exist - they'd complement each other perfectly. You could use generative models in the privacy of your home, for reference or inspiration or to quickly explore possibilities, and then paint like you normally do - or even use generated images as they came out. When the time comes for you to publish your work, you could use the database with an image search engine, to compare your work against already published works, and determine if you haven't accidentally violated copyright, or created something that could be seen as plagiarism. Similarly, other people could use that database to check newly published work, making it easier to detect and stop obvious copyright infringement. Problem is, the copyright system - both as a body of laws and as a spirit and mindset behind them - prevents the database from ever being created. At least in any form other than "yes / maybe?" responses from comparing perceptual hashes; go beyond that, someone comes out of the woodwork, seeking royalties. Reverse image search engines exist, but are barely helpful because of that. Anyway; > And if I'm going to cross the line, at least I know I am the one who makes this decision and takes the legal risk. With the current generative AI I don't even know who holds accountability. Likely nobody, or worse, an unaware me. Ultimately, you're still the one making the decision. No one forces you to publish whatever a generative model produced in response to your prompt. It's up to you what to do with the output. You also exercise creative control - both during and after generation. The legal situation of GenAI in general is still uncertain - but at the very least, you're still in control of whether you're referencing or plagiarising in a moral sense. |