>https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-judge-finds-flaws-artists-lawsuit-against-ai-companies-2023-07-19/
Judge finds flaws in lawsuit against AI art
>https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-judge-finds-flaws-artists-lawsuit-against-ai-companies-2023-07-19/
Basically the judge told they cannot prove their art was used, and if it was used, they also don't have a legal standing because the generations are not the artists' art.
Hilarious because that's what everyone told them since the start, but useful to create a precedent.
name an artist who didnt have an influence they ripped off.
oh look, you cant.
> because they have access to the source code
cringe. these judges think the images are somehow stored in "source code"? looks like globohomo garden gnomecorps are going to win solely because this judge is poorly educated on the subject. no surprise since it's usa and the judicial system will literally suck on the cocks of corporations for cash, free shit and favours.
You can't even fucking read, pleas spare us your opinions on the justice system. The judge is saying "because you have access to the source code and can therefore see how the product works, I'm requiring you to go back and explain in more detail your theory of how this product infringes your clients' rights".
> can't even read
>"cause you have access to the source code and can therefore see how the product works"
I'm sorry that your fellow countrymen are such abject failures and have kangaroo courts. not my problem either.
The us empire as it currently exists is everyone's problem
>these judges think the images are somehow stored in "source code"
No they don't. But the artists claimed they are stored in a model
Haven't the courts determined that AI images can't get copyright anyway, because the art isn't made by a legal person?
yes. but the problem is it can generate art made by others since it's just pattern recognition. that's the main sticking point. the datasets were compiled by scraping anything and everything from the net without a fuck to give about anyone's copyright and now it can generate copyrighted images/protected IP. i think this will probably drag on for years.
There's a standard called de minimis where you just have to show the most basic level of human input, a bunch of concept art, a few thumbnails, a specific character design you're aiming to replicate, anything to copyright something, and "i typed a few words into the AI" is not it.
Why is she dressed so immodestly? Where is her father?
Yeh but the only people who care about that are the garden gnomes.
I'd be thrilled if I saw something I genned used in the wild.
This won't last forever. Prompting takes time, there is thought and labor involved. You can cope all you want about it not being enough labor but again that won't last.
>you didn't travel because you drove, it was too easy
I think the decision to say that prompts aren't sufficient is p stupid and inconsistent. Random drippings on a painting are able do receive copyright protection, but not words that describe the thing you want in detail? Bet they took pity on the brushmonkeys
Exactly. I've said this before and I'll keep saying it but prompting is infinitely harder than photography is. Even at the most basic levels. No one is taking photos for 24 hours straight like any serious prompter. There is much less labor involved.
Artbros... we can't pencil ourselves out of this one.
The line truely has been... drawn
Badum Tiss
>compressed images
gottem
precedent set up for the "collage tool" lawsuit
Just imagine... such groundbreaking technology... that could revolutionize the way we live... gets shut down... because artists, who use references and technology to make art anyway, feel "threatened"...
Just imagine.
AIChads can't stop winning!
>Imagine being a hypocritical tradgay unironically believing you could battle AIchads
kek
Based. Too bad they got leave to amend. He should have dismissed them immediately