>


The only choice left is the user

You forgot one option.
Public domain.
The idea that all of culture should be divied up and turned into sellable assets is a very recent one. A century ago, most cultural items were not owned, they were just there.
Corporations have continuously and relentlessly expanded copyright to secure more profit, but we don't have to follow them.
Don't you think a better analogy would be a commission?
If I want a portrait painted of my partner for her birthday I can reach out to an artist and commission them. I give them a prompt "please paint a canvas of this woman, interpret her as a renaissance queen" I supply a reference photograph and the painter does their painting.
I pay them for their work and they ship me the product.
I own the painting.
The painter stills owns the copyright to that painting.
Even though I prompted the painter my involvement ended there.
It's possible even to credit the photographer that supplied the reference image in the first place, but they wouldn't own copyright to the painting unless it was too artistically similar to the photo. Because it was reinterpreted into renaissance that's a slim chance. >

I always assumed it was the commissioner who owned the copyright, like if I have a idea for a character in my head but suck at drawing so I just gave a description for someone to draw for me, wouldn’t I own the copyright to the character I made up?
Or using your analogy if I commissioned a portrait of my partner, I wouldn’t want the painter making copies of her portrait to sell on the open market. >


The condition of them using the reference image was to produce a single work, they would be in breach of contract if they violated this.

I’m confused, if I control whether or not the work can be replicated, I essentially own it’s copyright (the right to copy) no?
I always wanted a family portrait on canvass if I could one day afford to have one made, but never did I even consider that I had to stipulate in a contract that the painter could only make the one artwork, so anyone who didn’t have it in a contract could find the artist selling copies of their family portrait on the public market?
That’s scary, I kind of not want to commission any art now, whether it’s my personal ideas or the people I care about, potentially losing control of my ideas and privacy because I’m not adept in copyright law, seems too high a price. >


I’m confused, if I control whether or not the work can be replicated, I essentially own it’s copyright (the right to copy) no?

If you have a contract which states please produce one painting from this reference and they produce two (or more, or even one and a half) they have violated the contracted.
But the painter still owns the copyright, so if your painting rips and you send it to a different painter and ask them to make a fresh copy they would be in breach of the first painters copyright. You send it to the original to remake.
There is always a contract when you commission something, and most artists aren't out there selling portraits of other people's families. Your fear is unfounded. >

That's not correct. A new painting is a new painting. The new artist implicitly owns that new copyright. 
The copyright can also transfer if the artist signs it away. >


A new painting is a new painting.

Go paint Mickey Mouse and see how that works out for you.

The copyright can also transfer if the artist signs it away.

That's a contract. >

These are some good resources and I will look into them now. In terms of the mickey mouse thing, if the output has elements of something that is protected, then that is infringing and Disney can sue. I am talking about cases where the output does not have direct elements of copying >

...but that's the argument isn't it? The data the AI was trained on consisted of copyrighted elements. So is it more akin to an artist taking copyrighted images and putting together a collage for their own copyright, or is it entirely new?
It's certainly nuanced. I think ultimately judges will rule that anything made via an AI that had copyrighted data in its training will result in the output not being eligible for copyright. >

Intuitively I would argue that is entirely new as opposed to a collage. That is an interesting position in your last sentence. So it would be public domain then? Couple questions in that scenario: 


How would they prove whether there was copyrighted data in the training? Some people might not know what a model that comes to them has been trained on in the past. 


What would you say to the argument about influence? If I listen to George Carlin's stand up 5000 times and then create a stand up set of my own which is clearly influenced by his work but draws no direct copying, should I be able to copyright my set?