I totally disagree with the idea of making raw text-to-image output from closed source models like Midjourney, but I wonder how much level of control would change most people's minds on if an AI image can become copyrightable.
Would an artist who creates a private AI model on their own art be allowed to copyright everything that comes out? What about if it is a small model, based on top of a much larger model with other people's art but copies their personal artstyle very closely (a low rank adapter, or LoRA, in stable diffusion terms)? What if the artist sketches the outline then uses a model that matches the image to that (known as a controlnet), along with the above?
The answer might just be "never", if Chancellor Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford v. Narendra Publishing house's ruling is upheld, since mathematical formulas can't be copyrighted, and if AI art is reduced to an output of a mathematical formula, then it makes sense to always treat it as copyright-free.
Would an artist who creates a private AI model on their own art be allowed to copyright everything that comes out? What about if it is a small model, based on top of a much larger model with other people's art but copies their personal artstyle very closely (a low rank adapter, or LoRA, in stable diffusion terms)? What if the artist sketches the outline then uses a model that matches the image to that (known as a controlnet), along with the above?
The answer might just be "never", if Chancellor Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford v. Narendra Publishing house's ruling is upheld, since mathematical formulas can't be copyrighted, and if AI art is reduced to an output of a mathematical formula, then it makes sense to always treat it as copyright-free.
reply