It may vary depending on your jurisdiction. Under US copyright law, I believe that generated images are not copyrightable, so you wouldn’t have any protections from anyone copying your cover, but I doubt that’s a big concern. The model or service that you use may also have various terms in their license that restrict what you are allowed to do with the generated images. Finally, you also need to make sure that your image isn’t violating someone else’s copyright. If you generate an image that is too similar to an existing image, that could be problematic.
Yes but ai doesn’t add anything new. The artists in our history we value are often valued because they challenged artistic conventions. An LLM literally cannot do this.
The difference is that a human inputs their labor into their art, therefore adding value. When a machine takes hundreds of peoples labor and sells it without compensation it is exploitative but when I view hundreds of peoples labor, learn from it and add my own, I am participating in a valuable human tradition.
It may vary depending on your jurisdiction. Under US copyright law, I believe that generated images are not copyrightable, so you wouldn’t have any protections from anyone copying your cover, but I doubt that’s a big concern. The model or service that you use may also have various terms in their license that restrict what you are allowed to do with the generated images. Finally, you also need to make sure that your image isn’t violating someone else’s copyright. If you generate an image that is too similar to an existing image, that could be problematic.
Okay, yes, I don’t care if someone uses the image afterwards, and I’m not trying to copy someone else’s work either…so the big if for me is…
“is terms in their license that restrict what you are allowed to do with the generated images.”
ah i have bad news for you on how all current ai generation systems work
I have bad news for you, that’s how humans work too. They get trained on how to draw/paint/etc. on copyrighted material, then make derivatives.
Yes but ai doesn’t add anything new. The artists in our history we value are often valued because they challenged artistic conventions. An LLM literally cannot do this.
The difference is that a human inputs their labor into their art, therefore adding value. When a machine takes hundreds of peoples labor and sells it without compensation it is exploitative but when I view hundreds of peoples labor, learn from it and add my own, I am participating in a valuable human tradition.
Fair enough!