This is copied from Pete's upcoming $5/month AI images email newsletter, which is available now via the Path Shift People Store.
Also to note, in the US, AI images currently cannot be copyrighted.
Are these images stolen from "real" artists? What about copyright?
To be very clear, I strive to ensure that any images I distribute do not infringe copyright, trademark, or moral rights of other artists or creators. Please let me know if you have any concerns!
Another thing: image generators don't just "cut and paste" sections of existing artwork to create something new. Instead, they generate an entirely new image from scratch. They analyze the text prompt provided, and then drawing on the "knowledge" gained from reviewing hundreds of millions of pairs of images and their corresponding text descriptions. The result is a unique, newly generated image that reflects the essence of the original prompt.
The issue of training AI on published images is complex and evolving. Artists and other creators publish their images, under copyright or not, so that they may be viewed. I think the process of having an AI view and form an impression of an image is similar to having a human view and form an impression of an image; it just goes a lot faster.
Current AI tools will sometimes produce an image that is very nearly the same as a copyrighted image. I believe the AI tools should have an internal process to discard that image without ever displaying it to the user. Nevertheless, it's up to me whether or not I redistribute an image like that, and I will not.
AI tools can also be used to generate images which if published might trigger trademark violations of commercial logos, trade dress, characters, etc. The responsibility there lies mostly in the hands of the user, and again, I don't knowingly infringe on trademarks.
Lastly, I think it's wrong to use the names of living artists as keywords that then produce images in the style of the artist. I think AI companies that allowed their tools to do that should now opt-out artists by default as soon as possible, and should compensate artists for prior infringements, including damages. Up until now, “style” has not been protected by copyright or trademark, which has allowed this gray area to open up; I think the legal system should close that hole, while not restricting expression of others unduly.