Science, Technology, and pawbs
One of the reasons I like AI art is that it's pretty settled law that something produced by purely "mechanical" means can't itself have copyright, since copyright requires both originality and a human author.
It seems like a reasonably compromise, the AI was created by hoovering up the commons, so anything it creates should belong to the commons. I expect a lot of lobbying in the future to try and change it though.
How is he losing millions of dollars? If you're just trying to get into the art fraud money laundering scheme thing then make an NFT and find an idiot. But just the creation of a piece (be it traditional, digital, or "ai") doesn't entitle you to a payout. And if you're just complaining about the dissemination of the piece you asked someone else's computer to generate for you without a kick back link tax, well--that's not how copyright, the internet, or normal human correspondence works.
How much did the real artists lose out on in order to train the AI?
lol get fucked loser. (the "artist", not OP)
Oh I sure hope he sets a bad legal precedent for AI "art".
He is not being the neighborly neighbor Mr Rogers wanted him to be.
Oh no, the consequences of your own actions! That art competition should just add a rule "only copyrightable works"
Lol, lmao even
I'm collecting all his tears to cook a big pot of pasta. Not sure how anyone would make "millions of dollars" from a single artwork anyway.
This is the schadenfreude I needed to get through my day
