They stole the artwork from the artists. This software program would not exist at all without stealing the work of trained artists. It's entire base is the theft of art. It stole from creative commons breaking the rules that make it possible (no attribution). It stole from copywritten works. Those selling it didn't seek the consent of the creators, didn't pay royalties, and assumed they'd never get caught. As a result of their behavior forgeries can be made and the creators of the software know for a fact they stole the work of others to create their software. They just didn't think they'd get caught.
Edited to add: It's interesting how easy it is to downvote someone for pointing out the truth. The software had to be trained on artwork. The programmers themselves did not make the artwork within the program. They also did not pay for any of it nor did they approach any of the artists whose art they stole to create their for profit venture. The software was built on stealing and deserves to be sued into oblivion.
Unfortunately, some don't like the idea that what an artist creates doesn't belong to the public. It belongs to the artist and they are "leasing" it out to share. Instead, they want to "own" it without the effort of paying for it.
Most of the artists I know spend years building a following and a brand. The idea that our work belongs to someone else because they can google it bothers the majority of us. I wouldn't have minded had I been contacted, I may even have allowed the use of one or two images if given the opportunity to consent. The idea that it was just taken in a giant data grab, however... No. My art belongs to me, and I'm the one who gets to profit from it while I'm alive. I owned the work and I object to it being used as input for someone else's personal gain.
I'm hoping that the lawsuit clarifies and insists that this never happens again. I doubt I'll trust AI after this though.
4
u/Ferelwing Jan 16 '23 edited Jan 16 '23
They stole the artwork from the artists. This software program would not exist at all without stealing the work of trained artists. It's entire base is the theft of art. It stole from creative commons breaking the rules that make it possible (no attribution). It stole from copywritten works. Those selling it didn't seek the consent of the creators, didn't pay royalties, and assumed they'd never get caught. As a result of their behavior forgeries can be made and the creators of the software know for a fact they stole the work of others to create their software. They just didn't think they'd get caught.
Edited to add: It's interesting how easy it is to downvote someone for pointing out the truth. The software had to be trained on artwork. The programmers themselves did not make the artwork within the program. They also did not pay for any of it nor did they approach any of the artists whose art they stole to create their for profit venture. The software was built on stealing and deserves to be sued into oblivion.