The sentence they wrote right before your quoted sentence answers your braindead question.
So you’ve decided on your own definition of “new content” and are now trying to bend what ai does to make it seem like what they’ve made isn’t new content.
Tell me where I can find all this ai art then if it’s not new?
Idk that feels like saying that as soon as you sell the skills you learned on YouTube, you should have to start paying the people you learned from, since you’re “using” their copyrighted material to turn profit.
I don’t agree whatsoever that copyright extends to inspiration of other artists/data models. Unless they recreate what you’ve made in a sufficiently similar manor, they haven’t copied you.
You need to expand on how learning from something to make money is somehow using the original material to make money. Considering that’s how art works in general, I’m having a hard time taking the side of “learning from media to make your own is against copyright”. As long as they don’t reproduce the same thing as the original, I don’t see any issues with it. If they learned from Lord of the rings to then make “the Lord of the rings” then yes, that’d be infringement. But if they use that data to make a new IP with original ideas, then how is that bad for the world/ artists.
Are you ok? You seem upset
My comment threads are constantly broken for some reason, always all out of order
It only gets rid of ads.
Just a quick correction, to just remove ads it’s $20, which is ridiculous to ask for a lifetime of something only a few months old (lemmy).
Which he literally answers in the comment you questioned him on. You asked him something after he explained what you then asked.
That’s braindead, and not because I “disagree” with your question, whatever that means.