Raw LLM Responses

Copyright is always provided to art and generally protects you from anyone else using your work aside from fair use. However, in the case of fair use, it has a legal requirement that the resulting image does NOT have any affect on the potential value or market of the original copyrighted work. (Got this first part from Sinix) Greg Rutkowski's work for example, has been put into these hundreds of thousands of times despite him being against it He has earned nothing from it. And it is hard to argue that those ai images flooding the internet when you search up his name isn't affecting his market. These ai machines are not comparable to humans being inspired. Ai cannot be inspired as it is not sentient. Humans combine references, with their own personal experiences, emotions, personal tastes, and more. These ai companies KNOW it’s wrong and don’t do use copyrighted music for the exact same model but for music. They only target visual artists because they don’t have the money or power to protect themselves. They claim to be "democratizing art" but in reality, anyone can get a pencil and paper and learn how to draw, that costs less than a computer and ai software. I don't believe that ai image generators should be stopped but i do believe that regulations should be put in place so that it does not affect artists who are already overworked and underpaid. They should only use public domain images unless artists choose to opt-in. Artists in the industry have created and designed your favourite show's characters, the way your favourite game looks, the furniture in your house, and more. Some people say art isn't a real job but they've done a lot more than people think. To support human artists: https://www.gofundme.com/f/protecting-artists-from-ai-technologies