On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney

Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train... by encomiast on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @02:26PM (#39017772)

There's really no reason for anyone to be confident that this is or is not fair use. The law around fair use is a quagmire of conflicting ideas, cases, and opinions and most of the law is in the form of precedents since the letter of the law is so vague.

One only needs to read the Supreme Court decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith. In this case, it was found to not be fair use, but with a forceful dissent from Elena Kagan. And this is just a straight-up use of a photograph / art-piece. Add technology to the mix and things get really messy quickly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train... by KaiserPro on Wednesday January 17, 2024 @11:44AM (#39030115)

in that case, the source image was actually licensed:

"Years later, Goldsmith granted a limited license to Vanity Fair for use of one of her Prince photos as an “artist reference for an illustration.” The terms of the license included that the use would be for “one time” only. Vanity Fair hired Warhol to create the illustration, and Warhol used Goldsmith’s photo to create a purple silkscreen portrait of Prince, which appeared with an article about Prince in Vanity Fair’s November 1984 issue. "

[ Parent | on HN ]