Whether something is directly competing for the same business would have to be evidenced, and copyright doesn't mean protection from all possible competition - it's just one factor weighed. And fair use protects many commercial uses, too, depending on proportion/character-of-original/etc.
But also, none of these images are direct, or even necessarily subtantial, "copies" of other images. The generator learned from other images – the same as any human artist might.
No watermark has been removed; the bigger issue may be that the spectral watermark violates a trademark. (But, I doubt consumers are likely to be confused.)
"The generator learned from other images – the same as any human artist might."
A lot of people seem to make this comparison, but I don't think it's fair. It's wrong. A computer is capable of ingesting/processing and "learning" from images at a rate no human can possibly come close to matching. To elaborate, it is not actually learning in the way we normally think of it, as its "brain" is completely different from a human's brain. It is doing something entirely different that should have its own word. Human artists learn from other human artists' work. An AI does something else.
It's also worth noting that the art the AI was trained on was posted online when the technology didn't exist (or if it did in some form it was not in the state it is in now). So an artist having posted their art online for public consumption can't be equated with somehow consenting to its consumption by a web scraper / AI.
It's great that human artists learn from, & introduce into their work, influences other than just patterns seen in other works.
But it's also great that AI artists can learn from more examples in a few minutes than a human artist might see in lifetime.
To say that's "not actually learning in the way we normally think of it" is superficially true, but it doesn't mean it's "not actually learning", or necessarily any worse than typical learning. It's so new, & we barely understand fully how it works or what its limits are. It might be better in many relevant & valuable aspects!
Fair, I don't know what it's actually doing. I just know you can't equate it with anything a human does, and the use of the word "learn" is misleading, or vastly oversimplifies what is happening, to the point that it allows for false analogies.
That said, my main objection to this technology is that:
- The AI's work is based on human artists' work
- Companies are then profiting off of the AI's work
- The companies are indirectly?/directly? profiting off of artists' work
- The companies do not get artists consent or compensate them in any way
- The companies are essentially stealing from artists
Companies should be forced to obtain the creator's consent when using art to train their models.
It’s going to be interesting what the stock companies will do. Maybe they will make their own Image Generator. Perhaps we will see a case based on the new factor that is AI. An AI is not artist; they can’t be conflated. A decent artists can churn out maybe 5-10 works if he is productive. AI can churn out by the hundreds or thousands if needed. The process also isn’t the same.
Anyway it will be interesting to watch this space.
Given the iterative contribution of a artistically-talented human prompter, I'm not sure that precedent – set by the Copyright Office in the US, rather than a clear statute or court decision – will hold up. A court might decide differently, or a statutory update could overrule the copyright office, especially in cases where an individual output is the mix of human & AI effort.
But also, none of these images are direct, or even necessarily subtantial, "copies" of other images. The generator learned from other images – the same as any human artist might.
No watermark has been removed; the bigger issue may be that the spectral watermark violates a trademark. (But, I doubt consumers are likely to be confused.)