How is giving an LLM the necessary prompts to generate a piece of art any different than giving modern CNC machines with their retard-proof graphic user interfacesthe necessary parameters to make a finished product.
I think the argument is that the LLM essentially scrapbooks its result from paper pieces it cut out of existing artworks. And that in turn makes it a derivative work so in some jurisdictions the law would say that the LLM-generated image is copyrighted by those artists whose scraps were used to create it, anyways.
I think that’s an overly simplistic description of how LLMs work, but I take your point. My response would be: how is a LLM trained on other artists work any different to a human artist taking inspiration from other human artists? Is an artist who creates fan art of Batman also derivative? In your argument it’s a clear breach of copyright, so should we be going after anyone who has ever drawn a picture of Batman as having broken the law?
They only would have ‘broken the law’ in this case if they tried to sell it as their own original work, which it isn’t, and that is what the prompt writer in the op is trying to do.
I’m not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that fan art cannot, by it’s very nature, by classed as original and therefore shouldn’t be able to be sold?
I think the argument is that the LLM essentially scrapbooks its result from paper pieces it cut out of existing artworks. And that in turn makes it a derivative work so in some jurisdictions the law would say that the LLM-generated image is copyrighted by those artists whose scraps were used to create it, anyways.
That is not how generative AI works. You have described collage, which is legal in any case because it’s not derivative but transformative.
I think that’s an overly simplistic description of how LLMs work, but I take your point. My response would be: how is a LLM trained on other artists work any different to a human artist taking inspiration from other human artists? Is an artist who creates fan art of Batman also derivative? In your argument it’s a clear breach of copyright, so should we be going after anyone who has ever drawn a picture of Batman as having broken the law?
They only would have ‘broken the law’ in this case if they tried to sell it as their own original work, which it isn’t, and that is what the prompt writer in the op is trying to do.
I’m not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that fan art cannot, by it’s very nature, by classed as original and therefore shouldn’t be able to be sold?