@cliffjones This is a slippery slope. Where does AI generated end and really fancy Photoshop enhancement plugin output begin? I mean, if a Campbell's soup can label with a few splashes of color can be copyrighted, why can't some prompt image that's been doodled on by an AI get the same treatment? What if *I* write the software that runs the "AI" algorithm? Who decides if it is "AI" or just a generative art algorithm? This seems absolutely arbitrary and unsupportable as a decision.

@cshotton I'd say it all depends on the data that's fed into the software to teach it. That needs to be completely transparent. None of this shady stuff like DeviantArt pulled where artists had to work fed to the AI by default. They changed their policy to where now you have to "opt in," but the damage has kind of been done.

Anyway, as is the case with most technological advancements, this whole thing is both extremely exciting and horrifying. That's what sci-fi is all about, you know?

@cliffjones You're missing the point. There's no logical link between the inability to copyright something and the belief that means it cannot infringe. In fact, the very reason you may not be able to copyright something is precisely because it DOES infringe on someone else's work.
@cshotton I think you're confusing me with @david1 here. I agree with you. 😁
@cliffjones @david1
Mastodon's reply threading is not the greatest. It's really hard to see the whole thread and to see who is being replied to. Sorry if it was confusing (or I was confused.)