If the original art is still copyrighted, and you’d start selling your hand drawn variation, you’d totally be violating the copyright.
To make it concrete, imagine the latest Disney movie poster. You redraw it 95% close to the original, just changing the actual title. Then you sell your poster on Amazon at half the price of the actual poster. Would you get a copyright strike ?
The scenes à faire doctrine would certainly let you paint your own picture of a pretty girl with a large earring, even a pearl one. That, however, is definitely the same person, in the same pose/composition, in the same outfit. The colors are slightly off, but the difference feels like a technical error rather than an expressive choice.
Even if it is an expressive choice of the new artist, if enough of the original artist's expressive choice remains, it could still be a copyright violation. Fair use can sometimes be a defense, but there are a lot of factors that go into determining whether something is fair use.
That’s a really apt comparison, since the Supreme Court just heard Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith, which hinges on whether Warhol’s use of a copyrighted photo of Prince as the basis for “Orange Prince” was Fair Use.
Warhol’s estate seems likely to lose and their strongest argument is that Warhol took a documentary photo and transformed it into a commentary on celebrity culture. Here, I don’t even see that applying: it just looks like a bad copy.
The photograph of the art, which will be more recent, might have copyright protections.
It looks like it wouldn't in the UK, probably wouldn't in the US but would in Germany. The cases seem to hinge on the level of intellectual creativity of the photograph involved. The UK said that trying to create an exact copy was not an original endeavour whereas Germany said the task of exact replication requires intellectual/technical effort of it's own merit.
It's really interesting. I suspect the face was inpainted in, or this was a "img2img".
I think over time we are going to see the following:
- If you take say a star wars poster, and inpaint in a trained face over luke's, and sell that to people as a service, you will probably be approached for copyright and trademark infringement.
- If you are doing the above with a satirical take, you might be able to claim fair use.
- If you are using AI as a "collage generator" to smash together a ton of prompts into a "unique" piece, you may be safe from infringement but you are taking a risk as you don't know what % of source material your new work contains. I'd like to imagine if you inpaint in say 20 details with various sub-prompts that you are getting "safer".
Features outside the face is lost/changed from original on the right, so can’t be face inpainting. Unlikely to be style transfers, because some body parts are moved. Most plausibly this was generated.
So much for “generation” - it seems as if these models are just overfitting on extremely small subset of input data that it did not utterly failed to train on, almost that there could be geniuses who would be able to directly generate weight data from said images without all the gradient descent thing.
That's clearly lifting style, pose and general location but in each of those there are changes. Even for the original art we could find tons of examples of very similar poses and backgrounds because anime girl in a bathing suit on a beach background isn't that original of an image at the concept level. That pose also is a pretty well worn.
This is the problem of applying the idea of ownership to ideas and expression like art. Art in particular is a very remix and recombination driven field.
I think the key detail is to look at what happened in the bottom left - in the original drawing, there's dark blue (due to lighting) cloth filling the scene, but the network has instead generated oddly-hued water there, even though on the right side there's sand from the beach shore. There's seemingly no geometric representation driving the AI so it ended up turning clothing into mystery ocean water when synthesizing an image that (for whatever reason) looked like the original one. It's an interesting error to me because it only looks Wrong once you notice the sand on the right.
But it means the models were trained on images that are under copyright. In fact many of these models were trained exclusively on such images without any permission. For example Midjourney is clearly trained on everything on artstation.com where almost all images have commercial purpose / licenses.
I don’t see Midjourney (et al) as remixes, myself. More like “inspired by.”