• @uriel238
    link
    English
    1
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Except that copyright doesn’t work that way.

    It is perfectly legal for a human artist to view McKernan’s paintings, and decide to adopt a similar style, or even to take an image and use it as a component of their art, provided it is different enough. So there’s no provision of copyright law that prevents robots from doing the same.

    No one owns a style, and painters classically practice by replicating the paintings of others and not necessarily limited to those in the public domain. In commercial art, an artist is commonly hired and given the instruction, make something that looks like this picture or paint our product in this guy’s style.

    The problem is that we depend on work to live and any job automated is someone else not earning a living. But that is always a consideration with automation.

    I think what people imagine is that the AI artist can be had for cheaper, or can produce more consistent results than the professional painter when, for now, it’s yet another artist’s tool that requires practice and skill. Managers looking get an office clerk to whip up some spectacular art are going to find themselves choosing from dozens of NSFL images.