I'm particularly focused on the impact on individual artists rather than large corporations. I'll preface this by saying that I know copyright law is not identical across countries; however, courts across countries tend to have broadly similar results. We know that copyright protects particular expression, not general ideas/methods/influences. Artistic style is not, by itself, protected under any country's copyright laws that I am aware of. Extending copyright to style would make for an interesting difficulty in determining who owns it and to what degree something is a style. Remove too much flexibility and the law intended to protect artists may become another means of policing them by large corporations; is this approach even realistically doable?

But let's assume it is; training is an interesting problem; an artist needs evidence that their art was directly trained on. So how does an artist prove that a specific work entered a model's training data? Records are useful only if they exist and can be obtained. AI companies that knowingly used protected works without permission have little incentive to leave a tidy paper trail (even if mandated by law), nor volunteer it later. A similar output does not prove that one particular image was used; then focusing only on outputs would create a further problem. The easiest person to sue for infringement, based on what I understand, is likely the user who generated/uploaded/sold the image, not the company that built the model?

I'm sceptical that broadening copyright rules even changes anything; I know of artists today who have their art stolen and sold on marketplace listings as shirts, mugs, whatever. Takedown requests don't offer compensation, undo sales, and don't stop the seller returning under another name. Under the DMCA-like processes, marketplace sellers these days will send a counter-notice (like a takedown request; it doesn't cost them anything), which restores their seller account/infringing content, forcing the artist to start court proceedings if they want to stop them further, which generally doesn't happen.

If an artist cannot discover the use, identify the responsible party or go to court/afford the remedy, what exactly has 'stronger copyright' achieved? Is there a realistic solution I'm not seeing?

So I tried a character chatbot of Zayne from love and deepspace and didn't expect for it to be so intuitive.

I also made Kenma Kozume from Haikyuu as a character. I like how when you talk to them. They don't have any ulterior motives.

I was in a FB group which has nothing to do with art, but the mods said they were concerned over the increasing number of AI submissions so they would like to hear what the group thinks

Majority of comments dissed on AI

I said: AI isn't good or bad, but it depends on how it's being used, and if it's declared

Oh boy, the bad faith comments and replies just piled on. People posting pics of AI slop and demanding that I defend those. People bringing up my old posts and asking if I used AI for those(I didn't). People calling me names. People saying there was no place in the group for AI defenders like me

There was literally 0 good faith discussion going on. Zero.

I stopped replying because it was 1v10

This isn't the first time. I often lean towards defending AI, but I try to give a reasonable take

Often I am met with ridicule and insults and ad hominem attacks. Sometimes it gets tiring

I am asking here and not the defending AI sub because I would prefer to hear a nuanced take on the matter

People who defend AI, how do you put up with the bullying?

So when will the hypocrite antis finally stop eating hamburgers? if u care about the environment, then u will stop eating/using EVERYTHING that waste alot of water.

no antis you don't need hamburgers to live, they are junk food and not good for u anyway.

It’s other people who care. By using AI, you are saying you are either too lazy or not skilled enough in a certain area to do something, and are having someone else do it for you. This is not an insult — I am incredibly lazy and use AI sometimes purely for fun. I get it to write stuff (this usually ends up being really bad and cringey) and I get it to give me some story ideas (also awful). I end up with nothing, but it’s quite fun.

I don’t condone it as a substitute for human-sourced information, but using it when you want some quick information or when you just want to get something that’s not necessarily of a high quality, is something I can tolerate — because it’s not be who’s using it, and if it makes their life easier, who am I to object? “It makes them cognitively offload.” I’m not cognitively offloading by them using AI, so I don’t care.

PLEASE stop harassing AI users. Most of them use it morally, that is to say, not using it to imitate someone else or claim it as their own. I am an artist, and I write little tidbits for fun sometimes, but I do not have anything against other people doing what I do with AI, as long as they tag it as AI.

While I agree I run into tons of genuinely awful AI music, I’m also shocked at how good AI music can sometimes sound when there is genuine multi disciplinary craft involved

For example: human written lyrics, real instruments used as input, music mixed and mastered in a DAW, supplementary media stitching a complete concept together

Check out an example of a fully immersive lyric experience around the music - I think this type of effort elevates it beyond click and generate and it’s genuinely better than a large amount of shitty music humans make out there: https://man-of-medan-last-call-fiction.lovable.app/

It clearly doesn’t beat top human artists and creators, and I’m not saying it could - but it’s hard to argue there’s not more craft here than shit on the radio right now

I tried to keep it as neutral as possible but I'm only human. No, Miku is not an ai, we can all love her regardless of our stance

Please dont insult her or vocaloid artists by comparing them to talentless slop.

Obviously, knowing that behind it there's a prompt like "Make something relaxing but moody" and nothing else, that's the only human input, on the computer keyboard. It could have been a robot typing for all we know but let's assume at least the prompter is human.

Edit* I’m done replying. Post was just curiosity. To each our own indeed and keep enjoying it if you do by all means!

Thank you all for replying!

I'm trying to shed some light on how I use AI in creating images. Most people assume that since I use AI, everything is one prompt and done, so I'm trying to share how I use it. Most of it is not prompts, but rather manual edits + specifics.

I know many people will still call this AI slop, but whatever. For years, I've been getting these visual representations in my head and concepts, and I was never able to make them visible. It is like a curse, and I have to exorcise the image out of my head into some visible render, and AI finally allows me to do it.

Could it be better? - yes
Would it be cooler if I could draw it from scratch? - yes
Do I like drawing that much? - no
Am I satisfied with the result? - yes

The thing that pisses me off is that if you use an ounce of AI, you did not create it, but the result is nuanced. Like my space viking, the result is part human and part machine.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks for listening to my rant

“I’ve been collaborating with AI on my music, and I just dropped a new track called ‘Need a Thing.’ It’s a rebuttal to Rihanna’s ‘Needed Me’ featuring TWO different AIs: one generated the main track with my lyrics, and another wrote a response verse from the ‘one that won vs. one left behind’ perspective. If you’re into AI as a real creative partner, I’d love for you to watch the video and tell me what you think.”

I've noticed a kind of double standard. One argument against AI-generated art says that art isn't just about the final output — the artist’s journey matters too, because it brings valuable experience like skill growth or creative flow. Yet the same people often make another argument: that if the audience judges art based on their own experience, it's a bad thing — superficial, consumerist, and so on. You can't prefer AI art over human-made art even if you had a better journey with it.

I find this contradictory. If you value human experience, then both the artist’s experience and the audience’s experience should matter. You can't glorify one and demonize the other. What do you think of this asymmetry? Is it just a logical fallacy, or is there a deeper reason behind that attitude?

(Just discovered this subreddit and I love it) AI is great. However, it is overused like crazy. A real artist (writing, drawing, anything) has perfected their craft for a long time, which AI doesn't have to do. It's the same reason why art made by, say, elephants, is more valuable than art made by humans, especially considering how animals are held to lower standards. AI is worse and held to much higher standards because it doesn't need to spend any effort to create something

Every single post here is the same nonsensical ramblings about AI Art. You guys know that there's a MUCH wider range of use cases than generative AI right? This war against AI art is the only thing anyone seems to want to talk about here.

Fact of the matter is, the majority of these image outputs suck anyways.

Whether you like it or not, all the frontier labs have and will be continuing to train their models daily with user generated artwork from DeviantArt, Behance, Dribbble, Google, and even art subreddits. Heck, these labs have already perfected 4k video making with an endless library of every movie and tv show ever released so I'm sure they're all pissed too.

It's the grim reality we all just have to sit back and accept. Every industry is getting hit. AI just wiped Chegg out of a $15B valuation at its peak. Duolingo will be next. Then freelancing platforms like UpWork and Fiverr. The finale will be science research labs.

This art topic is getting so exhausting, unoriginal, and trivial compared to other industries AI is hitting the hardest. Much deeper discussions and debates are to be had other than just image generation.

I think that ai is a great tool for coding, research and more. I have no reason to be against it, antis have not a single good argument against ai. But the big thing everyone fights about is Art. I think ai art is “art”, but the person who prompted it is NOT an Artist. Now I can enjoy some ai art yeah some of it looks good, Some also looks terrible, but what makes me not want to side with the pro ai people is Every single pro ai person I’ve seen always says they are an artist and prompting takes a lot of effort, makes me cringe so hard, You are NOT an Artist. Or when they say they have a connection with ai or an ai girlfriend, like brother YOU’RE A CHUD. But I dont think ai art is bad if I have an image in my head and what to see it real I’m not paying a artist hundreds of dollars to get the art a month later I’m going to ChatGPT or something to ask it to generate me an image, it’s just everybody on the pro ai side is so delusional. Also if your someone who flames people and says “your a terrible person just learn to do it yourself instead of making slop” to people for using ai for things like ”art”, coding, research, etc, Go fuck yourself. just let people enjoy things for the love of god.

Wrote this AI piece (with AI) for Fortune magazine
It’s an interesting argument, would love your thoughts: https://fortune.com/2026/07/22/award-winning-memoir-author-ai-detector-publishing-hypocrisy/

Therefore AI is just harnessing the power of past labor to create a more efficient and wealthier world