That's the question that is currently working its way through the courts in many different cases. We don't yet know the answer.

Unless it's a 1 for 1 replica I don't see how it's a substitute in the copyright sense.

We already have laws covering close derivatives - in this case it might not be clear who is the inspiration but there is no novel creativity... everything these networks produce is derived from artists - there is no added novelty.

Imagine how rich you would be if you were the first artist to make a red health bar in a video game.

I think that's exactly the sort of flawed analysis these copyright trolls do. They see something they never would have had a hand in and count it as "theirs", and then greed kicks in. It's like the old MPAA/RIAA calculations of lost revenue that assume someone would have bought a CD if they didn't download a song. Only worse because at least in the downloading case, they are a 1:1 substitute.

In almost all cases I'd guess that artists whose style is being copied by many genAI users are getting way more exposure than in some alternate universe where midjourney didn't exist. But nobody looks at it that way, they just see somebody else making profit and think they deserve some.

it's derived from the original and competes with the original

if it was parody or commentary or otherwise found a new market, it might be allowed under fair use, but the fourth factor of fair use concerns the effect on the market value of the original

No one is using Midjourney to replace artists. Artists are using Midjourney to speed up the most tedious parts of their work.

That's just BS. If people weren't replacing artists, there would be no need to prompt with "in the style of ___". are you honestly saying that only artistX is using the prompt "in the style of artistX"?

Making a picture in the style of an artist is not replacing them. I don't know why anyone could get that idea. I can sing in the style Janice Joplin, pretty sure I'm not replacing her and that nobody thinks I am.

Nobody cares what you think you sound like in the shower. Nobody

If I can make a voice over that sounds like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, why would I pay him to make the voice over for me? If I can make artwork in the style of X why would I commission X to make that artwork instead? Nobody cares if it actually was made by them as long as people think it was made by them. So "them" gets screwed because nobody will use them. We're obviously talking in very strict ones and zeros here with "nobody". Except for the nobody caring what you think you sound like

Singing in the style of someone is a bit different than commanding a few promots to make up lyrics and AI sing them in a specific style. The former implies some effort, the latter is just effortless. That effort not being needed nor rewarded would eventually lead to much fewer taking the road to any type of artistry. Maybe that’s the next evolutional step culturally or maybe it a big loss.

Media companies don't care if you think it's replacing her or not. They care that (1) they made something that will sell and that (2) they made it cheaper than they did before.

All content will be behind a subscription and the algorithm will say "you like Janis Joplin? Let's autoplay some close-enough AI artists that don't exist that we won't have to pay any royalties to!" You'll get an offer to upgrade to Double Pro+ for a special introductory rate to skip those tracks.

I know you're really really sad that one person can't hold all similarities to their chosen likeness in copyrighted perpetuity, but it sounds like you have a problem that things are SIMILAR and the artist isn't getting paid for any adjacent likeness instead of content itself being directly stolen. Regarding that topic, you should be able to find my morally, ethically and legally backed response via midjourney by prompting it to create the world's smallest violin.

This discussion makes people immediately place themselves under the boot of technology and display active helplessness almost entirely because they can't handle the mentality that it's now a commodity to get what they consider a "unique artstyle". That you can be "unique" if you consistently draw a line in thicker shades around borders and use flashy colors in a way no one has decided to try yet, and that this style "belongs" to you being extrapolated to the point of your artistic hobby becoming the only reflection of your identity as a person. Sad for those who staked their lives around capitalistic ideals.

I don't think you replied to the right comment. Or you forgot to read and comprehend mine and just answered some phantom you were arguing with in the shower.

You're right. Instead of asking for art in the style of Van Gogh, I totally should have commissioned him to do it instead. I've replaced Van Gogh!

Absolutely not true. Non-artists use it to replace the need to purchase art and art services.

That said it is unclear if the connection is strong enough between a given artist and their replacement.

The term is used here in its legal meaning, therefore as competing in the same space as the original

We're a stone's throw from publishers no longer needing illustrators. That job is going to be gone. It'll be the cheapest choice, so the market will make it the only choice.

My children's children are going to have a few classic books that were illustrated by humans, but anything new or reissued won't be.

Magazines, articles, and covers that might have featured human illustration will be gone. It'll be too easy to throw pennies for "draw something topical to article title in the style of artist that appeals to target demographic".

Direct duplicates are fair use as they are evaluated for criticism and the novelty of it being an actual duplicate at all

Everything else is a derivative work which falls outside of copyright claims

How would you like the law to change? That’s part of the equation too

Of course there are models trained only on licensed materials already, which reaches the same result of the material creators obsolescence