The big problem for Warhol is that people paid for the image he produced instead of paying for the original photograph for use as a reference to Prince's likeness. So the works were for the same purpose.
If you use generative AI to produce a 3d State of Liberty for your video game I doubt you'll end up losing a case by a photographer of the Statue of Liberty because the purposes are actually different. But if you are using generative AI of stock imagery to produce stock imagery I think you're going to run into the same problem as Andy Warhol's foundation did.
That's a giant only.
If the resulting image is nothing close to the source image then yes I agree you're unlikely to lose any copyright case.
But its the cases where they are similar that anybody cares. I pick the word "stock imagery" for a specific reason; I do no see a way that you can have a transformative use of stock imagery since its use is so vague. And a reminder (with a quote this time) transformative does not refer to the production it refers to the use.
If you painted every single stock imagery you could find and let companies license those paintings (or pictures of your paintings) instead of using the source stock imagery I believe you'd lose a copyright lawsuit.
> [1] AWF contends that the Prince Series works are “transformative,” and that the first fair use factor thus weighs in AWF’s favor, because the works convey a different meaning or message than the photograph. But the first fair use factor instead focuses on whether an allegedly infringing use has a further purpose or different character
[1]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
It's non-transformative in the legal sense that {an original image by X} and {a generated image in the style of X} are likely used for the exact same purpose (be it display, advertisement, whatever).
If you have a Picaso style advertisement for Ford its probably transformative w.r.t. any of Picaso's works since none of them as-is could be used for that advertisement. There's no way Picaso painted any Ford motor vehicles.
As well as if you used those imagery as an example of the generative capabilities the originals wouldn't suit that purpose. Or if you had a collection of AI generated art then the originals also wouldn't work.
No, it's not close at all. Did you look at the images in question for the ruling? Warhol's picture is very clearly a tracing of the photograph. Unless you're using the AI to generate an almost-exact copy of one of the training images, this ruling does not apply.
> Supreme Court rules Andy Warhol’s Prince art is copyright infringement
And fair use is the main exemption to copyright, and that was decided here.
Maybe, but that is not how dalle and other generative AI work right now it is trained on a huge number artists and images. Not just mixing and matching from images from one artist even if you ask for something in one artists style. Generated an images that falls under copyright seems possible, but automatic.
If anything, the fact that there was enough ambiguity that it took 35+ years for a court to decide that someone tracing a photograph was, in fact, not fair use is a good indication that it will be very hard to use current laws to stop outputs of generative AI that have been trained on copyrighted material.