News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Supreme Court Rules Andy Warhol’s Prince Art Is Copyright Infringement. Parent comment

Re:Supreme Court Rules Andy Warhol’s Prince Art Is Copyright... by mjr00 on Thursday May 18, 2023 @02:55PM (#35992466)
> Training a model on a bunch of images by {artist}, and then telling it "Generate me 20 images in the style of {artist}" seems pretty close to this ruling.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court Rules Andy Warhol’s Prince Art Is Copyright... by freejazz on Thursday May 18, 2023 @05:17PM (#35994168)
The decision is not an infringement decision. AWF did not dispute the finding that the images are substantially similar.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court Rules Andy Warhol’s Prince Art Is Copyright... by judge2020 on Thursday May 18, 2023 @06:35PM (#35995160)
> The decision is not an infringement decision

> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court Rules Andy Warhol’s Prince Art Is Copyright... by freejazz on Friday May 19, 2023 @12:28PM (#36003778)
No it wasn't decided there. There is no analysis as to whether the image is infringing or not and it's not even a debate, because the warhol foundation admitted the pictures were substantially similar.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court Rules Andy Warhol’s Prince Art Is Copyright... by Dylan16807 on Friday May 19, 2023 @08:33PM (#36008312)
Even better for AI, then, if the supreme court was divided on whether such a small change is a valid use even with similarity assumed.
[ Parent | on HN ]