Disney sues Midjourney

[Morrus]

That is an odd ruling. To me it seems like if you could train an AI on legally acquired material, you should also be able to do a lot of other things with legally acquired material. AFAIK, copyright law would not allow you to make a movie featuring art on a poster you bought, or text from a book you own, or music from a CD that's yours, and to me this seems like the same thing. Now, I'm of the opinion that you should be able to do those things, at least in an incidental way (just like I don't have to pay Harder & Steenbeck every time I post a photo of a miniature I painted with an airbrush they made), but the law doesn't agree with me.

You are correct, but once the Disneys and the appeal courts etc, have done their inevitable thing, you will no longer be correct. This ruling doesn't stand a chance of lasting a stiff breeze, let alone a Disney-powered hurricane.

 

[Umbran]

From the article: Fair use rulings take into account what the work is being used for (parody and education can be viable), whether it’s being reproduced for commercial gain (you can write “Star Wars” fan fiction, but you can’t sell it), and how transformative a derivative work is from the original.

And it is in that point that Disney will probably win against Midjourney - it sounds like Disney is brining evidence of Midjourney directly reproducing Disney artwork, and effectively advertising their services based on that ability. That, if true, will scuttle the transformative defense.

 

[FrogReaver]

And it is in that point that Disney will probably win against Midjourney - it sounds like Disney is brining evidence of Midjourney directly reproducing Disney artwork, and effectively advertising their services based on that ability. That, if true, will scuttle the transformative defense.

Training the model can be transformative while specific users using the model to produce a copyrighted work could be viewed as infringing. That’s the line I expect to be drawn.