[beardyw]

Whilst I have a lot of sympathy for creatives, seeing (or hearing) other people's work has been a source of new work since forever. In many ways AI is doing the same but way more efficiently. What it is not doing is adding something new. The existing rules don't acknowledge that part of "being inspired by ...".

[waffletower]

I disagree with it (generative AI) being incapable of adding new works. I have seen machine generated prompts rendered by image models create decidedly, in my opinion, new art works. A significant fraction of them I even liked.

[slg]

Whether it's capable/incapable of doing it is much less important in a legal sense than whether it does/doesn't. When it comes to the specific images in the article, the AI clearly didn't add anything new. The average person wouldn't be able to tell whether those images were AI generated or official images from the rights' holders. If any of us tried to build a business around selling images like these, we would quickly receive a cease and desist before an eventual lawsuit if we continued.