Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “Defendant built an algorithm that memorized features of Plaintiff’s IP. Defendant’s algorithm recombines parts of those features in order to produce works in the same domain that compete with Plaintiff’s work, all without Plaintiff’s consent.” The fun part is, this is how human artists learn too.
They absolutely do. What they don’t do is mechanistically clone compressed mathematical representations of input data. The human part of the creative process could very well be a distinguishing feature, legally.
It will be hard to tell whether an image was created by a “human creative process” or AI.
Will the same image be legal if a human made it but not if it was created by Stable Diffusion? How will someone even know, short of a legal discovery process?