Re:AI-generated art can't be copyrighted (Supreme Court decl...
by camillomiller on Tuesday March 03, 2026 @10:41AM
(#47234040)
Fuck this nonsense. Go study art instead of repeating shallow AI propaganda.
Re:AI-generated art can't be copyrighted (Supreme Court decl...
by Ajakks on Tuesday March 03, 2026 @12:30PM
(#47235742)
As someone who has actually studied art - right back at you.
All the most famous paintings are done like a hundred times - certain scenes were done by ALL Masters, as like a rite of passage or proof of arrival - pretty much the whole time between the OG Masters and modern art.
"Who is your favorite Sebastian?" Is a legit question, for example.
Re:AI-generated art can't be copyrighted (Supreme Court decl...
by camillomiller on Tuesday March 03, 2026 @10:43PM
(#47242786)
And? Have we all already lost any ability for actual consequential thinking?
Each one of those Sebastian is the living proof of a human experience, each with its subtleties, each unique. That is why you ask that question.
How on Earth can you compare that to a series of shitty pictures done in a few seconds by a stochastic machine?
Re:AI-generated art can't be copyrighted (Supreme Court decl...
by array_key_first on Tuesday March 03, 2026 @01:59PM
(#47237026)
Sure, but at at least it's created by humans.
I have an allegiance to humans. I have no allegiance to a computer program. That would be pathetic.
A brief history of art in general.