I didn't see a thread on this (did the AI companies redirect their shilling?) so I'm sharing it here. From Deadline today:

>The Walt Disney Co. and NBCUniversal sued AI company Midjourney on Wednesday, alleging that its image-generating service “functions as a virtual vending machine” that generates “endless unauthorized copies” of copyrighted works.

>The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, is the first major legal action that studios have taken against an AI company. Axios first reported on the lawsuit.

>The lawsuit states, “By helping itself to Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, and then distributing images (and soon videos) that blatantly incorporate and copy Disney’s and Universal’s famous characters—without investing a penny in their creation—Midjourney is the quintessential copyright free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism. Piracy is piracy, and whether an infringing image or video is made with AI or another technology does not make it any less infringing.”

The Deadline article has a link to the filed lawsuit. 143 pages long but a lot of those are visual examples.

>>148977210 (OP)
Rich people sue rich people.

It doesn't matter, but it's still fun to see how stupid people get over this kind of shit, hope both lose a lot of money over this.

I'll just post some examples.

The dreaded Boss Baby.

>>148977236
that's explains the removal of shock videos using minions filter.

>>148977227
Disney sucks for how they've weaponized copyright but these AI companies fucking blow too so it's kind of like watching two people you hate go at it.

A lot of examples. Also some funny bits where they have to legally define all of these things like Shrek and minions.

I'll end with this quote by Midjourney founder David Holz from an interview he did. Funny to see the sort of smug "we can't do anything cuz it's on the internets" answer get thrown back in his face in a lawsuit.

No matter who wins we lose so may as well enjoy the shitshow.

NOOOOO MY HIGH QUALITY CGI SIMPSONS GENS

>>148977227
When the bulls fight, the frogs get trampled.

>>148977210 (OP)
This is the 2020s version of authors suing fan fiction writers in the 90s.

How will the AI touting anon cope?

>>148977210 (OP)
RIP the person on 4chan who keeps making disney duck ai posts

>>148977424
Better because commercial misuse is considered worse than individual parody.

>>148977210 (OP)
Stable Diffusion chads keep winning

>>148977210 (OP)
Post link

>>148977562
>https://deadline.com/2025/06/disney-nbcuniversal-ai-lawsuit-1236430694/

>>148977210 (OP)
Never thought I'd die fighting side by side with the mouse

>>148977506
It's not "misuse". Corporations are people too, friend. Unless the court wants to deny corporate 1st amendment rights.

>>148977461
They use dalle, tho if Disney wins there's a non zero chance Microsoft just bans Disney prompts and you will have to use SD like all the same AI artists

>>148978730
I just hope not, because Dalle is incredible for Simpsons gens

>>148977210 (OP)
On the one hand I'm a little worried about the broader implications of a verdict here, whichever side it lands on. On other hand, I'm not a fan of either party here, but I really, really, really don't like Midjourney or the companies like them. So I hope Mickey breaks their knees.

>>148977264
If Disney wins, it just means the techbros will just set their sights on people to poor to sue them. Unless this happens coincide with a class action lawsuit of astonishing proportions.

>>148977296
Holz is such a slime ball. Guys like him are dripping with this entitlement where they don't think the rules should apply to them. There's always some sort of mental gymnastics they resort to in an attempt to avoid responsibility yet still claim credit. You see it all the time with Sam Altman like with his whining over Deepseek and copyright lawsuits.

>>148979376
>So I hope Mickey breaks their knees.
If Disney wins then they also have a license to ban all fanart and their commissions. It's like you braindead retards didn't think this through.

>>148977210 (OP)
No, not the mega tech bubble!

It's supposed to explode so violently that it'll take us back to the 1400s!

>>148977210 (OP)
Oh, it just got serious KEK

>>148977210 (OP)
It's probably not gonna get very far because they literally just removed all restrictions on all AI. Midjourney is probably just gonna be like Chatgpt where they block prompts from companies that request it.

>>148977424
That isn't even comparable, AI gens directly require copyrighted material in order to exist, and is already established to simultaneously be uncopyrightable AND violating Fair Use laws. They're closer to pirated movie stills being sold by billion dollar companies than anything remotely resembling fanart.

>>148979438
1) fanart falls under both parody and fair use laws. So long as people aren't directly profiting off said fan art in a way that competes with Disney, they can't do shit even if they wanted to.

2) Disney has no intention on going after fanart because they directly benefit from it. It's been known for ages that nearly all companies tend to turn a blind eye to fanart/porn because the suits consider it to be free advertising, and can be used as a way to measure trends. Clone High got that godawful reboot literally because of the massive surge in fanart it got.

To go after fanart would be shooting themselves in the foot and throwing away an invaluable industry tool. Meanwhile getting rid of AI gens would only be a benefit to everyone, barring Indian grifters and the AI companies peddling this shit.

>>148977506
But the fanfiction authors weren't making money off the fanfics.

>>148979420
>Guys like him are dripping with this entitlement where they don't think the rules should apply to them.
In their defense - the economics of the internet are powered by theft and surveillance. AI is just the most efficient strategy of digital theft devised yet, and it also neatly folds into the surveillance economy.

disney being based for the first time in 20 years

>>148979573
50 Shades of Grey&Sword of Shanarra

>>148979583
Those were changed enough, though. You can write an original plot using the characters in an AU, then just change the characters and replace them with your own. That's how City of Bones evolved from a Drarry fic.

You can't write a book about Harry Potter then publish it yourself and make money off it, though.

On one hand, I know that a lot of people just use AI to make shitpost images, it's no different than those weird South American simpsons images.
On the other hand, those shitpost images are usually made for free in a cracked version of photoshop, no money is exchanging hands. This has someone profiting off of someone elses' work.
On the other, other hand, IP law is antithetical to the free market since someone who has the capability to do a better job than the IP holders cannot and most of the time IP laws are to protect those who inherited an idea, not the original creator.
On the other, other, other hand, I am so sick of seeing low quality images made by AI reposted endlessly by rajesh and punjab claiming that this will kill artists, so fuck 'em.

>>148979568
>It's probably not gonna get very far because they literally just removed all restrictions on all AI.
Its going to go the way of the AI company settling the lawsuit and removing all Disney-related prompts and image banks. AI doesn't magically make old copyright laws go away.

Disney would absolutely sue little Timmy 10 year old for drawing Donald Duck in his home if there was money to be had in suing little children. And the way the copyright law works they would win too.

Keep in mind 99% of the populace breaks the copyright law all the time in their daily lives. Only reason 99,999% doesn't go into court is because its too small a crime to prosecute. The AI company simply got too big and too lucrative for its own good so it became a target in Disney's crosshairs.

>>148977210 (OP)
That's like suing pencil manufacturers because a pen functions as a "virtual vending machine" that generates "endless unauthorized copies" of copyrighted works.

>>148979632
>Disney would absolutely sue little Timmy 10 year old for drawing Donald Duck in his home if there was money to be had in suing little children. And the way the copyright law works they would win too.
Wasn't there a kid who had Spiderman on his tombstone and Disney wanted it removed because it harms their brand?

>>148979571
>1) fanart falls under both parody and fair use laws. So long as people aren't directly profiting off said fan art in a way that competes with Disney, they can't do shit even if they wanted to.
All those things apply to AI Art. People can and are profiting from selling fan art right now. Go look at Patreon.

>2) Disney has no intention on going after fanart because they directly benefit from it. It's been known for ages that nearly all companies tend to turn a blind eye to fanart/porn because the suits consider it to be free advertising, and can be used as a way to measure trends. Clone High got that godawful reboot literally because of the massive surge in fanart it got
And? That all applies to AI Art as well. There's an argument that AI is even better at doing this thanks to preserving forgotten cartoons or underrepresented characters in fan art.

>To go after fanart would be shooting themselves in the foot and throwing away an invaluable industry tool. Meanwhile getting rid of AI gens would only be a benefit to everyone, barring Indian grifters and the AI companies peddling this shit.
Naw you're just a hypocritical bastard. AI will always exist. Cope.

>>148979641
>There's an argument that AI is even better at doing this thanks to preserving forgotten cartoons or underrepresented characters in fan art.
How does a machine that only saves the instruction on how to imitate something preserve anything specific?

>>148979635
You're using logic on co, anon. Also this use to be an anti-authoritarian leaning website. Anything that makes corporations like Disney piss their pants should be lauded. How far this place has fallen...

>>148979678
There are endless amounts of obscure background characters that the AI community has resurrected and brought to life.
How many "traditional" artists remember the mom from the 2006 movie The Ant Bully? How many of them are willing to make high quality fanart of her.
Now multiply that with every other cartoon character in existence and AI is literally a digital museum of sorts.

>>148979632
>Keep in mind 99% of the populace breaks the copyright law all the time in their daily lives.
That's not even a little bit true. Copyright law only comes into play if you try to SELL work that is based on copyrighted content. You're not allowed to profit based on another person's hard work.

Are you selling Mickey Mouse prints out of your garage, anon?

>>148979689
>Also this use to be an anti-authoritarian leaning website
You are on /co/, the board that is second only to /v/ when it comes to being filled with shills and bootlickers from the industry. And the one board that sucked Rednigger's cock while the rest of the site unironically wanted him dead

>>148979641
>All those things apply to AI Art.
No, they literally do not, this was proven both in court and directly by the copyright offices.

>That all applies to AI Art as well.
Again, no they do not. We actual scientific research that shows AI content has the opposite effect of advertisement, steering people AWAY from a companies products.

>There's an argument that AI is even better at doing this thanks to preserving forgotten cartoons or underrepresented characters in fan art.
How, you fucking retard? By clogging up websites and making it MORE difficult to find content about said characters? Sites like Rule34, Pixiv and DA are borderline unusable because of how much AI spam has run rampant there.

>>148979721
The weights don't contain the training data. You are not preserving anything.

>>148979728
>Copyright law only comes into play if you try to SELL work that is based on copyrighted content.
Yes, and why does it only come to play when money is involved? Because suing random people is pointless and not worth the bad PR. When you made a copy of your precious cassette tape or burned your CD to your friend, you absolutely did break the copyright law. When you're seeding a torrent, you're breaking the copyright law, doesn't matter if you make money from it or not. The reason why you don't get in trouble is because you're too small of a fish to bother catching.

Every now and then some companies hire 3rd party lawyers who go on a copyright lawsuit rampage suing everyday people for downloading torrents. And every single time its more of a PR nightmare for the company than its worth in money. Europe in particular had a ton of these type of lawyers 10 or so years ago but that practice stopped because of how deeply unpopular it was.

>>148977223
guys it has the shadow thats movie quality

>>148979641
>All those things apply to AI Art.
No it doesn't. Fanart is not protected by fair use either, it is merely tolerated by the big companies because its free advertisement and attacking your own fans is not a good look. Other good example is video game streaming. Technically thats not allowed either, all the streamers are doing it because game companies are letting them do it. Its free advertisement for the game.
>That all applies to AI Art as well.
It doesn't though, because the AI company is either directly or indirectly making money off of it. Keep in mind when Disney sues AI, Disney is not suing any users, they're suing the AI company itself.

>>148979786
>No, they literally do not, this was proven both in court and directly by the copyright offices.
No it wasn't. Why do you think the Mouse is still trying to take down AI? The previous losers failed to debunk it.

>Again, no they do not. We actual scientific research that shows AI content has the opposite effect of advertisement, steering people AWAY from a companies products.
Bleddit is not science. Most people in real life don't mind and have no autistic hate boners against it.

>How, you fucking retard? By clogging up websites and making it MORE difficult to find content about said characters? Sites like Rule34, Pixiv and DA are borderline unusable because of how much AI spam has run rampant there.
Keep crying retard. What you call "spam" other people prefer to bookmark it and save to their collections. Just like human art.

>>148979792
Did you miss the " endless amounts of obscure background characters that the AI community has resurrected and brought to life." part you idiot?

>>148979816
>is still trying to take down AI?
It is going to. 100% guarantee you won't be able to prompt anything Disney related in Midjourney very soon.
>Most people in real life don't mind
Feedback of most people on the Coca-Cola christmas AI advertisement was negative, they said it looked creepy. Uncanny valley in full effect.

>>148979815
>, it is merely tolerated by the big companies because its free advertisement and attacking your own fans is not a good look.
And so is AI. Why wouldn't fans also use these tools or spread awareness with them?

>It doesn't though, because the AI company is either directly or indirectly making money off of it.
Then sue Patreon and every Pencil company in history then. Also, the user has to provide their own prompt first.

>>148979842
Name one.

>>148979857
>And so is AI.
No its not, Disney and Universal are suing Midjourney. Did you not read the OP? Are you retarded?
>Then sue Patreon and every Pencil company in history then
Patreon regularly gets takedown notices from the big companies and like a good puppy it complies. What the fuck are you talking about?

>>148979842
You are not preserving anything. You're telling the database application to create an approximation of something associated with a chain of key terms.
What's being reproduced with this deluge of fanart is a fandom, you're basically claiming that Dranei Horse Cock art is what keeps classic WoW servers going.

>>148979816
>Why do you think the Mouse is still trying to take down AI? The previous losers failed to debunk it.
...what? If anything the only reason they're going after it is because there's an actual case you giga retard. What, you think a company is going to waste time on a case they think they might LOSE?

>Bleddit is not science.
http://web.archive.org/web/20241219192821/https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/401832/brain-functions-react-differently-to-ai-generated.html
Read it and weep, jackass. Or are you just going to call this "reddit", too?

>What you call "spam" other people prefer to bookmark it and save to their collections. Just like human art.
Sure, Rajeet. Whatever Microsoft is paying you, it's clearly way too much.

>>148979855
>It is going to. 100% guarantee you won't be able to prompt anything Disney related in Midjourney very soon.
You sure about that? This has to be the 5000th time I've heard AI would be stopped. Nothing happened.

>Feedback of most people on the Coca-Cola christmas AI advertisement was negative, they said it looked creepy. Uncanny valley in full effect.
And yet Coca-Cola is still rich as fuck. But keep trying though.

>>148979882
>This has to be the 5000th time I've heard AI would be stopped.
Midjourney will be stopped. Try prompting anything about chinese politics in chinese AI. Your precious pajeet AIs are already severely restricted and they're only going to get restricted even more in the future.
>And yet Coca-Cola is still rich as fuck.
Lmao what a fucking retard

>>148979689
It's not a mutually exclusive situation. Midjourney is a Silicon Valley company fueled by venture capital. It's of the same ilk as Zuckerberg and Altman shit. You can hate everyone involved.

>>148979876
>What, you think a company is going to waste time on a case they think they might LOSE?
Yes. And I can't wait to post the crow when the inevitable suit fails again.

>http://web.archive.org/web/20241219192821/https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/401832/brain-functions-react-differently-to-ai-generated.html
Read it and weep, jackass. Or are you just going to call this "reddit", too?

AI is proven to be better at customer service. In fact, chatbots are able to work 24/7 and respond to requests faster than humans. They're not going away.

>Sure, Rajeet. Whatever Microsoft is paying you, it's clearly way too much.
You are being replaced.

>>148977210 (OP)
I wouldn't care about the usage of AI except for the fact that it all looks like ugly shit. CGI already looks like vomit, we don't need something that's 11 times worse.

>>148979882
>And yet Coca-Cola is still rich as fuck
You might actually be the dumbest person on /co/. And I do not say that lightly, I'm genuinely convinced you're subhuman.

>>148979910
Except Midjourney is providing a service that anyone can use. Disney trying to yank it away only benefits Disney.

>>148979934
Piss off prick. No one asked for your opinion.

>>148979939
Lmao, every time with you AI freaks.

>>148979949
Did you hear what I said? Piss the fricken hell off prick.

>>148979922
>when the inevitable suit fails again.
>The biggest IP lawyering company in the world who managed to lobby IP extension for itself is going to lose its lawsuit against a company that used copyrighted material.
Oh yeah keep living in your head you dumb brown hand fuck. Midjourney is going to capitulate and do everything Disney demands like a good boy, or they get fucking crushed in the court.

>>148979876
>Starlink is for Tesla to hire remote drivers in India
Kek.

>>148979955
>this user is underage

>>148979571
>AI gens directly require copyrighted material in order to exist, and is already established to simultaneously be uncopyrightable AND violating Fair Use laws.
Not according to precedent set by Authors of America V Google, in which courts found Google scanning entire copyrighted books and making them searchable to be entirely within fair use. The main finding was that Google's use was "transformative", and given AI gens create their images completely from scratch via digital noise and algorithms, they're nothing if not transformative.

>>148980247
>in which courts found Google scanning entire copyrighted books and making them searchable to be entirely within fair use.
Yeah about that, Internet Archive is currently in lawsuit for that very same reason.

>>148979438
If Disney bans fanart that''d be the easiest way to get basically everyone online to stop caring about all of their properties as they slowly die out
>>148979815
Fanart was already protected by fair use law and lawsuits affirmed this, they can't ban you from personally drawing a cartoon character for personal use

>>148977296
>>148979420
Fucking retard
>Let me just admit this blatant infringement publicly because surely these companies aren't waiting for the perfect moment to gather good enough evidence for a case
No doubt the real reason for the suit is so that they can monopolize AI in house effectively by being the only ones who can use their own works but it's nice to see this faggot get shat on.

>>148980420
>Fanart was already protected by fair use law and lawsuits affirmed this
Which lawsuits are those? Disney can absolutely ban fanart if it wants to. Disney has threatened lawsuits against creator of Arne Anka multiple times despite him being protected by parody laws. He had to change the appearance of the character multiple times and nowadays Arne looks closer to Alfred E Kwak than Donald Duck.

Fanart exists on the whim and mercy of Disney. Disney won't ban most fanart simply because theres no benefit of doing so and they would be just hurting free advertising.

>>148979935
It's due to the ICE riots and these studios being scared that people will use their characters to spread anti-ICE and anti-Trump activism messages

>>148980247
This nig apparently is so underaged that he never knew Google Book pre-trial. These days, all it's good for is that you can access billions of foot notes, which makes it a useful references to Academic conference papers and other grey literature not listed anywhere else. Of the actual text itself, it generally won't show you enough to replace actual purchase of the product in any manner.

>and given AI gens create their images completely from scratch via digital noise and algorithms, they're nothing if not transformative.
They do not. Training data needs to be gathered and processed. You can't produce a Mickey Mouse without having first harvested copyright-protected material of the related companies to train your image gen on.
The image gen then uses it to generate something that's clearly an equivalent of the images you harvested first, which is actively being used in place of Disney IP.

It's "Our AI can generate Tale of Earthsee, Ghibli-version-like images!" (what it actually does, what it's sold and used as) vs "our AI can identify and find somebody referencing to a place where Ghibli-like images are to be found" (what Google book does) here.

>>148980398
You supported their DDoS'ing, didn't you
Every opponent of AI did secretly, because it brings us all one step further to their "Harrison Bergeron" future where all forms of expression are banned

>>148980470
This is like if Bob Moog sued the entire music industry for not allowing him a total monopoly on synthesizers

>>148980472
>You supported their DDoS'ing, didn't you
Uh oh, the tranny forgot his meds again. You support child porn, don't you?

>>148977210 (OP)
>sue Midjourney of all things, the most basic and corporate AI.
>Stable Diffusion and other porn AI are fine.

>>148980479
So you're a Disney marketer who thinks a monopoly will help benefit creating propaganda for a nonexistent future war?

>>148980490
>So you're a
Stopped reading there. Take your meds tranny.

>>148980493
Indians really need their big 4 corporations to own these AI engines instead of their actual developers, huh
Why though?

>>148980420
If Disney bans fanart that''d be the easiest way to get basically everyone online to stop caring about all of their properties as they slowly die out

That's what yall niggas said about the Lilo & Stitch remake and yet Disney still made bank on it.
In fact, yall are the minority screeching. The soccer moms, karens and boomers will outspend whatever crap you were already buying from them anyway. All yall niggas do is just bitch on the internet and don't leave the house. Touch grass.

>>148980420
>If Disney bans fanart that''d be the easiest way to get basically everyone online to stop caring about all of their properties as they slowly die out

That's what yall niggas said about the Lilo & Stitch remake and yet Disney still made bank on it.
In fact, yall are the minority screeching. The soccer moms, karens and boomers will outspend whatever crap you were already buying from them anyway. All yall niggas do is just bitch on the internet and don't leave the house. Touch grass.

>>148980445
>Disney has threatened lawsuits against creator of Arne Anka multiple times despite him being protected by parody laws.
1. That case was in Norway, not the United States
2. Disney simply tries to intimidate with size to try and make you settle, if someone commits to it all the way up it will go their favor. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. and Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co. as cases protecting this. In this case they want to make pajeets ban any Disney prompts and will settle for that, though the originating of existing works as the frame of reference for AI is what's questioned which is different then fanart

>>148980523
>1.That case was in Norway
That case was in Sweden. Didn't read the rest since you're clearly too retarded to have a real discussion.

>>148980519
You say this but the lukewarm response to the ending change shaved 200-500 million off from its projected box office
Also can't discuss Lilo and Stitch online = it doesn't get as wide an audience

>>148980527
>In 1990, the Nordic division of the Walt Disney Company ordered Christensen's publisher to cease and desist all publication of Arne Anka
Again, regardless of the Nordic country is Sweden, you pretended it was United States and they have similar laws so your entire argument is shit and invalid

>>148980508
It's similar to the "gotta have my Batman" effect where a consumer knows if a brand is big enough, consumers will stop caring/noticing about a decline in quality due to the quantity of said product
It's the self-made illusion of choice, filling an aisle exclusively with all-dressed chips, then watching someone act like one bag will somehow taste better or different from another of the exact same flavor

>>148980529
The remake already made like 2x more $$$ than the original but sure, it was 4chan who was going to save the movie.

Just give it up. Yall aren't that influential. I can see why you hate AI because it took whatever thunder was still left.

>>148980533
>Regardless of the facts of the situation, you still wrong.

>>148980533
They're also assuming Disney would be exempt from any anti-monopoly laws.
Then a couple years later, if they're doing worse financially, they'll be all oblivious as to the fact their legal battles resulted in all fanart of their works being deemed defamatory by default
This entire stance hinges on the idea that fanart = defamation of a brand

>>148980544
You are, you're talking from a Nordic standpoint and not a US standpoint where non-profit fair use (such as fanart) is cemented by Supreme Court

>>148980554
No such thing in Sweden. Fanart to them is defamation, and "fair use" is piracy

>>148980541
And Snow White 2025 made $200 million while the original made $8 million during its initial run, 25x more then the original, so Snow White 2025 succeeded

>>148980554
>nd not a US standpoint where non-profit fair use (such as fanart) is cemented by Supreme Court
Its not cemented anywhere. If you draw a fanart of Donald Duck fucking Minnie Mouse in her prolapsed mouse anus and the picture becomes really popular, Disney will give you a takedown notice because it "hurts their brand".

>>148977210 (OP)
IDK who I want to win. I hate Disney (Universal is okay though I can't claim to give a fuck about them), but I think them suing AIbros for infringement of their copyrice is funny. It really does show you that these companies really aren't that interested in this technology as people make them out to be. The only people who talk about AI loudly are AIjeets who glaze and sycophant it, and union tranny artists who "hate" AI because they are insecure of their own jobs and want to force every artistic endeavor to be union shills.

>>148980572
This new trial has the potential to blanket-rule all fanart and fan works as defamation
I'm not sure why you're idealizing that as a solution
It shows an instance of "Corporate brittleness"

>>148980581
These just feed the idea that the industry is a machine to outsiders. Some of these AI networks have also recently been exposed as human-run render farms. If you're not maintaining a part of the machine, you're treated as one by a middle-man who decides everything for you

>>148980584
>This new trial has the potential to blanket-rule all fanart and fan works as defamation
No it doesn't. Its enforcing old copyright laws on AI. You're just an upset AI pajeet trying to reason your own mental illness that either AI will stay as it is or AI will be destroyed and the world will become a police state.

>>148980581
Imagine ignoring a piece of technology so much you have to try and sue it out of existence? But wait! You guys also said AI was useless?
Make up your minds faggots. The moment a robot can replace you means you were always worthless to society.

>>148980572
You're conflicting things.
Anyone can make a "takedown notice", you can even report a takedown notice of my reply to 4chan right now. Doesn't mean what the are doing is legal and by established law. What they bank on when they do that is either you don't care enough in the 15 minute of fame internet to even respond to it to put it back up, or that you aren't familiar enough to be scared not to. Ultimately, if you simply responded back it would go back up (knowing that they could sue), and if the somehow actually did and you actually fought it and didn't settle you'd win.
Not that they would anyway, I don't think I've ever heard of them even taking down porn of their characters
>>148980584
Not at all, even if they don't just settle the pajeet trial won't affect it. Non-profit fully original pencil works or typed words based off existing content is not the same as for-profit, transforming data of the copyrighted work into an AI image. They are entirely different things.

>>148980644
>>148980617
>AI auto-monetizes everything you have to believe me
Monetization is a choice of the user

>>148980477
>This is like if Bob Moog sued the entire music industry for infringing on his total monopoly on synthesizer-produced sounds.
Fixed.
Like he could've made a business of renting out his machines and explicitly taking a cut from anything produced using them, yes. That would've been legal, that's how the business side of Social Media works. It's great money if you can enforce your monopoly.

But to elaborate on it, a synthesizer uses specific technical solutions to simulate the operations of distinct tools. The patent is on the technological solution and the complete description of its operation. The Synth's operation does not require instruments to exist. Instead, it references physical instruments through a novel technical application.

The LLM is a database application that produces digital data. It requires actual, existent digital data to start its operation and it's literally being rated on how well it can imitate any specific digital data it's been trained on. Flowers without dog faces and all that.

In the first place, going from digital data to similar, but somewhat randomized digital data is a way smaller transformation than going from a physical flute to a machine that can make you electronically imitate a flute ensemble. The flute itself can never be an ensemble.
It's also a smaller transformation than going from publishing a book to running a system that allows people to find foot note references in all publications of the last hundred years. The book itself can't be that electronic reference system, not even if you digitize it.

But your digital database application that generate slightly randomized, but still high fidelity outputs of its digital reference materials as digital outputs does none of that. It's a machine that literally just infringes on digital copyright.

>>148980652
The question comes to the monetization of the pajeets behind the ai, as it appears to be a corporation (Midjourney, Inc.) that is profitable
Note they are not suing users who made AI of Disney characters using the service

>>148979407

It should just end in the mass incarceration of everyone who has had anything to do with LLMs to make them learn "ask for forgiveness, not permission" is not a legal thing to do. They started off by stealing every piece of media in existence with the assumption that if the crime is big enough, they can't be sued for it.

>>148980662
Sweden lacks antitrust laws
In the last year it's seen the mergence of child terrorist gangs, who cannot be prosecuted by definition of the legal system

>>148980670
Mea Culpa for hosting The Pirate Bay for so long? Monopolies sound fin to those who already have everything run by the state, and thus any other brand is a threat to the government itself

>>148980644
>Doesn't mean what the are doing is legal and by established law.
Yes it is. Disney owns the copyright and if they argue to the court that your fanart is hurting their brand, the court will side with the copyright holder. Thats why in every single copyright court case the defendant always tries to argue that his new work is derivative and separate from the original IP and therefore copyright law should not apply to them in the first place.

Fanart is not protected by any law whatsoever. Its just like streaming video games, its simply tolerated by the IP holding companies because its more beneficial than harmful to their brand. Parodies and satire are protected by law and even they lose half the court cases.

>>148980690
No consumer trusts a company they view as actively hostile to themselves. That makes people feel forced into enjoying content for appeasing some higher authority instead of genuinely enjoying it, that's how propaganda works.

>>148980763
>No consumer trusts a company they view as actively hostile to themselves.
And thats why Disney doesn't sue the living daylights out of little Timmy 10 year old making fanart, despite Disney perfectly being able to do so with courts blessing.
And this isn't some speculation, this shit has already happened with other companies using 3rd party lawyers to sue everyday people for copyright infringement. It was so unpopular that nobody is doing that anymore.

>>148980807
>And thats why Disney doesn't sue the living daylights out of little Timmy 10 year old making fanart, despite Disney perfectly being able to do so with courts blessing.
You're suggesting everything is different if he makes that art with a computer instead of a pencil and paper, even if still unmonetized, holding him responsible for the content on servers he doesn't know of.

>>148980829
>You're suggesting everything is different if he makes that art with a computer instead of a pencil and paper
Disney is not suing AI users, they're suing the AI company.

>>148980838
Users will still suffer the impact of it. This is not some self-contained, isolated incident, instead it's going to set a precedent and be used to justify removing consumer protections

>>148980619
No one claims AI is useless. But too many AIbros overstate the actual abilities of generative AI and machine learning while having zero knowledge on programming and software. At the end of the day, AI is a tool which can be used or misused. It's just that most people are misusing it thinking it can create shit out of thin air. Wait until Disney actually figures out HOW to use AI correctly, pay artists ethically for training data and credit them for training data of the AI. AIbros would be BTFO because they don't have artistic skills for the training data, neither do they have programming skills to train a model.

>>148980851
I think you're right, if Disney wins it would likely force AI companies to purge their training data of copyrice and remake all of their huge models, or pay massive sums to different companies. Could be a bad thing for AIbros

>>148980690
>Disney owns the copyright and if they argue to the court that your fanart is hurting their brand, the court will side with the copyright holder
This is impossible if you are not profiting off the fanart, there’s a reason Disney has never went after a single person who made fanart and isn’t selling it as its own product. That is they’d lose if it went far enough in court
They use fair use because fanart IS fair use if it’s not being sold. If you are selling is where all the stipulations of if it’s purpose comes into play

>>148980863
If anything it will lead to AI becoming more decentralized, future models being either local-only, or being hosted by private servers with some form of verification on the user end

>>148980871
>there’s a reason Disney has never went after a single person
The fuck are you talking about? Disney has taken down plenty of those weird Frozen flash games and those weren't making any money for the creators.

>>148980881
God forbid someone puts a pregnant belly from a doll builder template on Elsa in a flash dress-up game

>>148980881
Have they went after them in court, instead of DMCA which can be appealed by the flash game developer and put back up right away with a simple notice?
Because the later isn’t what I’m referring to, I’m talking about in actual court proceedings

>>148980910
>Well ackhually they didn't go into court because the defendant complied before the court case happened, that means copyright theft is legal!

>>148981107
Yes because a court case would be very different result then a DMCA claim

disney is finally doing something good for the world

>>148981144
If that was true, then nobody would comply with DMCA.

>>148981178
People are too lazy to defend in court, too unknowledgeable about the process, or don’t want to be drawn out with legal fees
They would win if it’s how I’m being described this scenario is and I’m not being misled, but who would do all that for a free flash game?

>>148981189
Someone whose image of their brand is very fragile and brittle

>>148980534
*if a corporation knows a brand is big enough

>>148980470
>harvested copyright-protected material
That's the thing: It's only using the images as reference. It's no different than an artist only knowing how to draw Mickey because he watched copyrighted material in the past. It's not redistributing the images and it's only generating the characters themselves because users prompt it to.

>>148977210 (OP)
>did the AI companies redirect their shilling?
there are still daily AI slop threads on many boards so I doubt it

>>148980523
This what amazes me about all this. Everyone keeps talking about this like its "the big one" that could stop Generative AI
The lawsuit isn't stepping to the plate on what an AI can or can't use regarding training data. It's a fairly standard lawsuit saying "you can't make pictures of our characters"
Everyone here has to remember that these studios fully intend to use the technology for themselves when they feel they can get away with it.
They wanna have their cake and eat it too by making sure that their characters can't be generated

>>148981406
You're forgetting the implication, which is they will force you to work for them if you want to draw their characters. This means any past parody will also be censored

>>148979438
Disney banning fan art would single handedly hand all of their market share to Sanrio.

>>148981384
It's not exactly deleting the images after it's been referenced either, so it's still holding onto the images indefinitely every time it makes something. Memories can fade with time, this shit will be there forever until the owner makes a conscious effort to remove it. And they won't.

>>148981494
And you can also buy a copy of Frozen on DVD and look at it whenever you want. As long as it's not redistributing it, there's no problem.

>>148981524
100% irrelevant to what I just said, good sir

>>148981534
No, it's not. There's no public display. There's no distribution. The AI is just holding on to the image as an art reference.

>>148981550
So it's still holding onto the image. The image that it never paid for. Nor has any intention of deleting the image once its purpose has been served.

Anon, I hate Disney and the general over reach of copyright protection, but admitting this shit definitely is not helping the case that AI art isn't theft of some kind. That'd be like taking a cookie from the cookie jar, claiming it's fine since you didn't eat said cookie...and then refusing to ever put the cookie back in the jar since it's in your hands now.

Also
>There's no distribution
Sure, right up until the servers that the images are being held on are sold to someone else to build the next slop generator.

>>148981178
People comply with DMCA because they don't know what they are. They are essentially just a legal threat of "stop that or we will sue." You are under no obligation to comply to a DMCA. But non compliance can mean might get sued. They can be issued for fucking anything and any crazy can get one issued through services like legal shield.

They are trying to scare people into complying or they will take it to court. With Disney they probably would take it to court if you don't comply. Even if you were 100% in the right and it whatever you were doing was protected they would still take it to court because they have the funds to stall you out until you go broke from legal fees.

>>148981600
This is correct. Pic related is a good example. A company tried to release a collection of public domain Mickey Mouse newspaper comics. Disney threatened legal action because people would mistake it as an official Disney product because it's being advertised as having Mickey. So the company released it with a completely black cover, no mention of Mickey or Disney anywhere on the book, and nothing that could be seen as trademark infringement.

Disney sued them anyway.

>>148979574
The issue is that copyright and theft are not at all ambiguous. The only surprising thing in all this is that the ai companies didn't get instantly sent to the shadow realm on day one. Perhaps the media companies hadn't figured out this 'ai' is a scam.

>>148977210 (OP)
>Mouse Mafia saving us from AIspergs
based. Death to AI. Death to techbros.

>>148981384
>That's the thing: It's only using the images as reference.
It can not exist without the reference and on top of that, it can only get better when having access to more references, so there is, literally actually, factually, hard-baked into its operation mechanism at a technological level, no fair use case here. That would imply a very clearly limited use of the IP, which the technology used here itself by its nature can not abide.
>It's not redistributing the images and it's only generating the characters themselves because users prompt it to.
Doesn't matter. Their service enables the IP infraction. They don't sue people for being able to draw Disney characters, they sue people for making commercial use of the IP. The vector of it are these image generators, which is why they're getting sued. Without the image gens, the sloppers don't have any material, simple as.
And don't come to me regarding locally run forks, because those only exist because the companies generated&distributed the weights in the first place.

>>148977210 (OP)
How would they even enforce this? You could ban all of the copywritten words I guess, but I can still do "cartoon blonde ice princess singing" to get elsa pictures.
I guess remove all the copywritten character data from the learning set?

>>148977424
First of all there was only one notable author who did that, "anne rice" and she's a miserable weird old cunt anyway. Second writing fic is done by a human, one at a time, through hours and hours of effort. AI craps out images by the shitload in 1 millisecond. Not the same. Fic writers don't get commercial benefit from it, either, whereas AI bros are raking in cash from violating copyright.

>>148981494
The training set is used to generate weights, but it is not part of the mathematical weights that are used to generate the image. Which is why AI can't claim that they're preserving anything specific or that LLMs contain factual knowledge.

Also reminder Musk wants the US govt to pass a law banning regulation on AI for 10 years. that is fucking insane. AI bros need to be curbstomped.
>>148979438
Fanart is not for commercial purposes (except patreon cunts, who need to die anyway as they are cancerous). You can't sue for damages if there are no damages. Dumbass bitch.

>>148977210 (OP)
What I don't understand is how the studios think they are harmed here. Shouldn't they be suing people attempting to profit from the derivative works? This is like suing a paper manufacturer because people can use their product to draw pictures of copyrighted works and sell them, rather than going after the artist. It's silly.

>>148977210 (OP)
>please ai-generated Elsa from Frozen
>ai generates Elsa from Frozen
>AH-WHUUUUUUUUUUUUUH!?

>>148981768
I'm assuming the end goal is to get their material out of these public AIs datasets, that way they can be the only ones who generate this type of content. Then they'll release a pay to use phone app or something that lets you generate disney characters, since nobody else is allowed to.

>>148981748
>but I can still do "cartoon blonde ice princess singing" to get elsa pictures
Can be a princess made of ice, can be a ICE princess singing, you might get blonde Ice Cube as a princess.

>>148977243
...His name is Ted?

>>148981788
This. Big tech companies never step in to stop actual criminal usage without some angle in it for themselves. We'll have phone apps of Disney approved ai slop of hypothetical ursula and hades' kids within a few years.

i just want sloppa to go away forever.

>>148981873
Can't close Pandora's box.

>>148981838
Disney has already used AI in advertisements and that AI vader in fortnite too. Anybody who thinks this is a moral/ethical crusade is a fool.

>>148979571
>AI gens directly require copyrighted material in order to exist
no, AI gens require a math formula to exist. The AI just sees the copyrighted material once then comes up with a formula to imitate it.

Gens have never stored actualy copyrighted content within themselves.

>>148981985
Not him but from how OP is worded it seems to imply there is some data set that stores the images. Maybe its for like 0.5 seconds for the AI to learn from, but that storage at all seems to be what Disney is targeting.

>>148981873
>>148981897
It'll never permanently go away, but it's not going to fulfill any of the pie-in-the-sky dreams that its investors are putting forward in the timeframes they want. It's already hitting a ceiling via how ai art is cannibalizing itself. Regulations, bribes and the usual level of human incompetence are going to take care of the rest until it's a shadow of what was once promised.

>>148979882
Ah yes the 30 year old soda company, they should've become instantly bankrupt from their one ai ad. You're so right.

>>148982035
I think it still has some good uses, like in the medical field or for helping categorize data faster. You just never hear about those cases, because they don't spark debate like the AI art/writing stuff does.

>>148979635
a pencil manufacturer doesnt need to siphon and train pencils on decades of movies to get the graphite core in the pencil.
genai needs to, because otherwise, it would still be spitting out garbled bullshit.

>>148982035
I don't think we'll see anything great from AI until the tech hits the point where it's both strong and fully open sourced. The companies out there now are doing the heavy lifting and need payoff, and the fastest way to do that is a race to the bottom

>>148980619
>The moment a robot can replace you means you were always worthless to society.
>He said, on the mongolian phone manufacturing enthusiasts forum.

>>148982071
>>148982105
I agree, but I definitely think the usage of it for the art field is one of the least important usages of it beyond just testing its capacity for data crunching, and nothing has really convinced me otherwise

>>148982130
digital camera sensors were once missile guidance systems, just because you see it used for art doesn't mean there aren't other applications

>>148982130
Personally I tried AI art on a project, but ended up removing it. It's kind of just soulless. Not even in an ethical sense, but that it felt like the equivalent of just buying some premade assets and dragging them in to my work.
Okay for prototyping or shitposting, but ultimately best replaced when you want to be taken seriously as a creative.

>>148977210 (OP)
If they win this though wouldn't it give them carte blanche to sue every other artist that ever made a drawing of their IP?
This seems a bit dodgy.

>>148981480
That's wishful thinking, but instead it will be used as precedent to ban parodies and home drawings. This is vertical integration

>>148982261
Nah, the AI companies just have to have their Pajeets remove all the Disney-related materials from the trawled hauls.

>>148982261
It's far more likely to be settled out of court, and for Midjourney to scrub the specified images out of its servers...while acting clueless in regards to any copyrighted material that their bots vacuum up afterwards

>>148982261
They don’t sue for drawing based on Disney, they sue for drawing Disney copyrighted or trademarked material.
This is more about removing their data from the model.
Like how there are a few lawsuits still winding their way through about people’s names and works appearing in LLM training data.

>>148982021
I don't know how midjourney operates, they are also quite old and may have pajeeted some things.

But a properly set proc gen image AI doesn't need to store jack other than the math it needs to imitate artstyle and the pondered values / weights assigned to words it needs to figure out what you want to prompt.

Even AIs with "memory" ie how claude "sees" things in that pokemon game don't work by taking screenshots of things, they transform the data into better stored values.

>>148981753
>>148977424
One of the commercially published Omegaverse authors sued a bunch of others fairly recently.

>>148982404
The point isn't that they store it, the point is that they use it commercially and that they abet the use of their product in IP infringement.

>>148982404
>I don't know how midjourney operates, they are also quite old and may have pajeeted some things.
Google's actively using Pajeets hired through the Mechanical Turk to fix weights. They do manual reviews of gens to improve their results.

>>148981907
this image has a deeply menacing aura to it. it's supposed to be a welcoming dinner scene but the ai-genned mascot suits are so offputting. the random selection of food on the table, with a bowl of indistinct brown vegetables front and center. clarabelle cow welcoming you to the feast. are we, the viewer, the guest or the main course?

>>148982442
I heard about that, bitch was like, "nooo i am the one who owns omegaverse, me me me and only me!" like, imagine trying to copyright a blowjob. crazy.

omegaverse had its start in supernatural gay incest porn 15 years ago. you can't copyright a sex trope. but histrionic bitches will try suing over anything. they just use lawyers to bully people and get a narcissism high.