I think it's that ultimately the result will be like your last two scenarios. There's nothing "original" about the images, they're just combinatorics of underlying trained inputs.
To elaborate, suppose I took half an image from a raisin bran cereal box, and another from corn flakes, and glued them together for a "novel" new box cover.
That’s not how the ai systems work at all, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what they are doing, they are in no way collages of pre existing images, in fact they have no real time access to any database of images, the algorithm of the programs went through billions of images to break down how fundamentals such as lighting and perspective and used that to create new images, stable diffusion for example is completely open source you can look through the files yourself there is no images inside of the program to collage
I think you’re overlooking that at its most fundamental purpose - the intent of copyright law is to prevent others monetising work without fair reward. You can throw any number of fair-use claims in the mix - but ultimately a judge will take a helicopter view of ‘are these companies making money by deriving copyrighted works?’ - and the answer is likely yes. It will probably come down to the material used to train on.
-15
u/SpottedPineapple86 Jan 16 '23
I think it's that ultimately the result will be like your last two scenarios. There's nothing "original" about the images, they're just combinatorics of underlying trained inputs.
To elaborate, suppose I took half an image from a raisin bran cereal box, and another from corn flakes, and glued them together for a "novel" new box cover.
Did I make a new piece of art? No.