Why AI art should be illegal

[Mik]

[Mik]

As I said, derivative.

[Axtremus]

Making AI art illegal would violate the First Amendment.

[Copper]

Software has no rights

[Axtremus]

The human users who use the software do.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Axtremus said in Why AI art should be illegal:

The human users who use the software do.

They don't have the right to rip artists off, which is exactly how it currently works.

[Axtremus]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Why AI art should be illegal:

@Axtremus said in Why AI art should be illegal:

The human users who use the software do.

They don't have the right to rip artists off, which is exactly how it currently works.

That is a good point.
If we allow only AI models that are trained using only public domain data, would that address your concern?

[Aqua Letifer]

@Axtremus said in Why AI art should be illegal:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Why AI art should be illegal:

@Axtremus said in Why AI art should be illegal:

The human users who use the software do.

They don't have the right to rip artists off, which is exactly how it currently works.

That is a good point.
If we allow only AI models that are trained using only public domain data, would that address your concern?

This is a direct quote from Midjourney's terms of service page:

We respect the intellectual property rights of others.

There are hundreds of thousands of copyrighted works accessible by Midjourney, which the platform continues to use.

So, no.