The thing with generative models is, it's hard to make them output anything from their training set verbatim. I don't know of a single case of that succeeding with SD or DALL-E or others. So it's not necessarily false to say that the models too always add their own "stamp".

Yes, but I'd counter that by saying the difference is in its reproducibility. Given the same inputs to the machine (AI model, [copyrighted] training data, prompt, seed), you will get out the exact same output. It's a mechanical derivation of the original works, and therefore, a copyright violation. On the other hand, humans do not work that way, you can't point humans at the same works and get identical outputs. I'm not 1000% sold on this interpretation, but I think it is a reasonable one.

A good counter to that is that the training data that was chosen as an input, and the prompt, are sufficiently original to count as their own work. Kind of like how an artist might use a copyrighted stamp to create their own work (Campbell soup cans).

And a good counter to that is that a translation of a book into another language is still considered a derivation of the original work, not its own work, despite requiring a whole lot of creative human input on the part of the translator.

I don't know!

>And a good counter to that is that a translation of a book into another language is still considered a derivation of the original work, not its own work, despite requiring a whole lot of creative human input on the part of the translator.

At the end of the day, it's all about legislation and case law--and judges making calls on the borderline cases, which creates new case law. It even plays into whether models themselves are copyrightable which, in turn, depends partly upon whether certain doctrines (like "sweat of the brow") apply under current copyright regime.

Can a different person copy the style of copyrighted work so closely that it violates the copyright of the original artist? I feel like this is a question that must be answered before we add AI into the discussion.

Generally no, styles are not copyrightable, but as with all things in the world of IP, it's fuzzy. Here's the first thing I found on a web search: https://www.thelegalartist.com/blog/you-cant-copyright-style

I think one of the problems is that it is fuzzy. If we can't draw the line with humans, AI is going to increase the scale of the problem. Now, instead of a few artists getting close to the fuzzy area of acceptable or not and being able to be judged partially on intention, AI allows for magnitudes more to get into the fuzzy area. Perhaps we were too lax in allowing the fuzzy to remain fuzzy due to such a low number of cases, but now technology has increased the intrusions into this fuzzy space far faster than the law can keep up.

It’s a good question and I do not believe a style has ever been found to be copyrightable, only actual works.

Styles would seem to be more in the trade dress / design patent side of IP law. Apple’s famous 22-element iPhone design patent, etc.

But it’s hard to imagine an artist reducing their style to clearly defined elements and applying for protection. “A geometric grid or squares and rectangles with white background and black lines extending entirely across the canvas horizontally and vertically. Some grid rectangles are filled in primary colors. The square intersections of two black grid lines may be filled in primary colors. At least some of the grid lines are spaced irregularly”

So your argument boils down to the idea that humans impart a magical, invisible mark on their own artworks, and though no one can measure this mark nor see it, the fact that it exists within your own imagination exempts them from overburdensome rules that you would mercilessly apply to one of the most exciting innovations of not only the 21st century, but even the 20th century before it?

(I emphasize again, that I don't know where I stand on the issue. But for the sake of argument...) Well, I think my argument is that the mark is not invisible or undetectable. Simply by nature of being human, we impart something of ourselves onto things we create. For example, maybe by how you choose to compose the objects within a work, in a way the artist whose style you are mimicking would not have done, or the context in which you present it. Or maybe in how you hold the tools, where it creates an unintentional but different effect in the work. Whereas with an AI model, it will always create the same output for the given inputs.

> Well, I think my argument is that the mark is not invisible or undetectable. Simply by nature of being human, we impart something of ourselves onto things we create.

You're one of those people who think that if you can imagine something and then describe it poetically, that this has any relevance to the real world that the rest of us inhabit.