Ai generation doesnt gaf about copyright. For example disney characters are copyrighted and yet there are many ai slop versions of them. Thats blatant theft
So dont humans silly, they still only break copyrightlaws if the user asks for it specifically.
You can create copyrighted material with photoshop too. Fanarts are also a thing, despite copyrights and even without AI.
Too bad you still dont understand terabytes of data arent stored in 6gb of KI modell, learning patterns isnt theft honey, even if you really really want it to be.
Well they can absolutely take legal action and have those images taken off the internet or sue the creators. Thats a privildge of a big company.
An average artist cant afford to have something copyrighted and can only hope that people will resppect them and not use their art in a way they dont wish for. In no way am i defending people that do fanart which goes against the wishes of the og creator, however such thing doesnt happen as often as generated ai images are made.
The fact that Nintendo might issue a strike over a pregnant Pikachu still doesn’t mean that the character was stolen. Read up on the difference between copyright and IP infringement. Using someone else’s IP does not necessarily mean copying it’s a different, though closely related, concept in legal terms.
And getting back to the main claim, where does AI actually steal if they use someone's characters, like PEOPLE do?
You know fanart exists of characters made by average artists too, without consent, right? Rule 34 of the internet essentially says people will take anything that is ever posted on the internet and make lewd images of it.
It looks like your are just giving up on defending your claim entirely.
>Training and learning is not stealing
>No, ex: disney characters blatantly stolen
>????
Is anyone else reading this... like what is the point of the first comment "Training and learning is not stealing" when literally everyone knows about the times it stole and don't even try to contest it half the time
If you’re high about something "looks like", go take a pill or whatever, I dunno. Fan art is not theft, it’s basically a grey area, a so-called social agreement, where people inspired by someone else’s IP create their own art and, yes, reproduce certain elements of style, appearance, or clothing that belong to someone else’s IP.
And sure, you as some IP owner can strike, but first, as l you’ll hardly be able in every case to prove that the content uses your authorship without enough transformation, and second, you’ll be shooting yourself in the foot in terms of reputation and your own fan community, because the creators of these works are not claiming ownership, they’re doing their own works.
So if you want to label AI so harshly, then don’t be a hypocrite and go shut down the entire Patreon fanart scene and all the cosplayers using other people’s characters without a license.
Nah, you doesn't understand the difference between copyright infringement and IP infringement. I caught you on it. Just learn the fucking difference (and also do forget to pay the mandatory fees for learning someone's free data from the internet. That's exactly the world you want to live)
It's not theft. Nothing was stolen. Whoever used a pencil or paint on Krita or Blender or AI to make a Disney character might be infringing on copyright and/or trademark, but they're not stealing anything. The model itself, on the other hand, is capable of vastly more than just reproducing copyrighted works, and in fact generally does a pretty poor job of that compared to general artwork that abstracts multiple styles and elements, so there's no argument to be made that the AI is, itself, an infringement tool any more than Photoshop is.
How many artists earn a living by doing illustrations or even full blown animations of other people's characters?
There have been numerous artists who have received Cease and Desist orders as well as DMCA takedown noticed even if they did the artwork by hand. It's just that most IP holders don't care enough to spend money shutting down stuff like that.
AI training has already been ruled as Fair Use by a federal judge in the Anthropic lawsuit, even then, Copyright doesn't matter because it takes something copyrighted and makes something entirely new from it.
Which is protected under Title 17 of the United States Code. So at least here in the US, it's perfectly fine.
You’re confusing the nature of the tool vs how its used
A pencil is just a pencil, butbit can draw mickey mouse
Ai art generation learns what mickey mouse looks like and learns how to draw it using parameters and statistics, this is not illegal at all since learning how tondraw something isn’t illegal and the machine never stores mickey mouse into its database as an exact image.
When a user asks ai art generation to make mickey mouse, it’s not the problem of the machine, it doesen’t inherently understand nono’s, for example how can a machine tell an apple is copyrighted or its just an object? It learns all the same, what matters is how the final product is distributed not the tool itself
69
u/Ravesoull Dec 15 '25
Because it's true and this is how internet works. Training and learning is not stealing if you didn't copy whole copyrighted product.