Because of the way the art is used to generate more ar specifically in a particular artist’s stylet, i think that it should only be legal if the artist are compensated for the use of their initial artwork for training. This would require ai developers to seek out permission from artists (or those responsible for the estate) to use said artwork. Some would likely be reluctant as the artwork can be used to create pornographic images or images counter to what the artists believes in.
You could easily argue that by allowing people to generate artwork in that artist’s style could result in lost commission revenue. It is worse if the program is subscription based, because the developer is profiting off of the original artists work. Another solution would be a form allowing the use of their art and promises of royalty revenue for each prompt generated using that artist’s name.
If this was implemented, most ai artists would suddenly be using artwork from 50+ years after the artists death. However, they could also turn to stock images or creative commons licenses, e.t.c.
It depends on how prompts are phrased as well. If the prompt does not specifically include a reference to an artist’s style, but the image rendered still includes a figure drawn in a similar style, can it be considered plagerism? Or is it arguable that by making the image available on the internet, as long as it does not directly reference that style, can it be used as “inspiration” for the ai program? Humans may look up images as inspiration and create artwork related to those images.
Another issue in question is the ai’s ability to render recognizable photo realistic images of specific individuals. They still struggle with limbs and some features, but that is steadily improving. I think that will be more difficult to legislate because a human arist is capable of creating artwork that includes renderings of actual individuals.
