>>73179404They can. If you publish your work and it's derivative they can sue you.
>>73179422No, AI models do not do anything like that. They regenerate the input based on the output labels. It goes in reverse, and understandably the original work is usually no longer fully represented by the model anymore. If you want to make an analogy then it's as if you were creating a collage of copyrighted works or as if you were applying filters over and over again. The question you're hoping to arguing for is at what point have you cut up and collaged the work so much, or applied the filters so much, that it is no longer a derivative of existing works. You would be arguing that the AI model does this. However, whether or not there is an argument that the original work is still substantially represented in the output, you can't make the argument that it was created by you, the AI, or anything with personhood. Hence it's not copyrightable until you have altered it significantly yourself. Not that the issue of the original creator making a claim is still unresolved and has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. On the other hand, the creators of the model still made the copyright violation, and are still liable.
Keep in mind that this is about the current situation. It is going to change in all likelihood, but probably because large corporations will take action to protect their own works from AI copyright scrubbers that you fantasize about. It could very well end up in a situation that neither you nor small artists want, because obviously no lawmaker cares about artists, just corporations.
