So they're protesting alleged copyright violations in the form of AI copying artistic styles (presuming an artistic style alone rises to the level of copyright protection) by committing trademark violations? Yeah, I don't get it.
I can appreciate that there are all kinds of potential "intellectual property" issues with the current glut of AI models, but the level of misunderstanding in some affected communities is concerning.
Outside of lawyers, what communities do you think should have an "understanding" of intellectual property law, and to what degree? Or, maybe the fact that it takes a lawyer to truly understand it indicates that the complexity of applicable laws and regulations isn't beneficial to the communities they're ostensibly meant to protect?
Communities that generate and/or profit off of "intellectual property" ought to have a rudimentary understanding of the laws involved. Doubly so if they're protesting what they see as violations of those laws. It honestly does not take a lawyer to understand the distinctions at play here.
When I took my graphic design class in college, there was a big chunk about copyright and trademark. We had to be very cautious about images we were using and the difference between the two was drilled into our heads.
I can appreciate that there are all kinds of potential "intellectual property" issues with the current glut of AI models, but the level of misunderstanding in some affected communities is concerning.