Hacker News Reader

But this person’s dog isn’t in the training set, so why should some artist be credited for a picture they never drew? Not a single person has drawn his dog before, now there is a drawing of his dog, and you want to credit someone who had no input to the creative process here?

View on HN

"Input into the creative process" is surely broader than simply "painted the portrait". Artists most certainly never consented to have their works used as training data. To this extent, they might be justifiably pissed off.

Artists and designers have furthered their careers (and gained notoriety) by 'ripping off' others since the dawn of time. This used to require technical artistic ability; now less so. The barrier to entry is.... not necessarily lower now, but different.

If you can find a new artist then I think the picture belongs to him.

That’s not (either positively or negatively) how copyright law works. You can not have a new artist and still not be infringement, and you can have a new artist (as is the case for derivative works by someone other than the original artist) and still be infringement if neither licensed nor Fair Use.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com