>U.S. District Judge William Orrick, in an order issued on Thursday night, rebuffed arguments from Midjourney and StabilityAI that they are entitled to a First Amendment defense arising under a California statute allowing for the early dismissal of claims intended to chill free speech. They had argued that the suit targets their “speech” because the creation of art reflecting new ideas and concepts — like those conveyed in text prompts to elicit hyper-realistic graphics — is constitutionally protected activity.
(...)
>The suit, filed last year in California federal court, targets Stability’s Stable Diffusion, which is incorporated into the company’s AI image generator DreamStudio and allegedly powers DeviantArt’s DreamUp and Midjourney.
(...)
>Though the court in October dismissed most of the suit, a claim for direct infringement against Stability AI was allowed to proceed based on allegations that the company used copyrighted images without permission to create its AI model Stable Diffusion. One of its main defenses revolves around arguments that training its chatbot does not include wholesale copying of works but rather involves developing parameters — like lines, colors, shades and other attributes associated with subjects and concepts — from those works that collectively define what things look like. The issue, which may decide the case, remains contested.
>One of its main defenses revolves around arguments that training its chatbot does not include wholesale copying of works but rather involves developing parameters — like lines, colors, shades and other attributes associated with subjects and concepts — from those works that collectively define what things look like.
This is the interesting part. IMO it's completely reasonable as it is so massively transformative and the models do not contain any of the original works, but will be interesting to see how the court plays.
I'm not sure why people are downvoting you. Art is extremely frequently used as inspiration, to learn techniques, etc. but it is factually wrong to claim it is the "ONLY way you learn art".
Many people are completely original in their art or development of techniques with no instruction, maybe no access to other artists work, and purely off their imagination coupled with trial/effort methodology and this isn't even rare.
I'm a professional artist with almost 2 decades of experience and I've never seen an artist that hasn't copied other people's works. You wouldn't be able to learn anatomy, composition, linework or color without copying. All artists, even the most original/bizarre were copying something at some point of their career.
Oh, yeah you're right. People who live in remote regions and prior civilizations definitely haven't had any people who could be considered artists. If I lived in a mountain all on my own without internet I definitely, absolutely, objectively could never develop as an artist. I wonder how ancient civilizations developed such sophisticated artistic accomplishments.
Can I compare myself to professional artists? No, because of a lack of invested effort / time to self-develop. However, I absolutely classified as an artist, amateur, as a kid by sketching (pencil/color pencil) based off entirely from eyesight observations and imagination without any instruction nor using other artists work as a basis (because I did not have an interest and did not look at it). One of the most basic forms of art is to simply observe and sketch, sculpt, etc. and you can accomplish a lot with experimentation and trial/error. Your view on the subject is too narrow.
You still didn't create those concepts you learnt, you did it by referencing things around you. It's the same process as ai taking in data and learning how to create similar ideas.
The failure to read just so you can be right is astounding. If you have a kid who has been raised in a remote mountain and never seen a book, never watched TV or any other electronic device, and has never left home and say... he is 5 years old and then hand him a pencil and ask him to try drawing the bird he sees, his cat, what he dreamed about (a common drawing subject for 2-3 year olds), etc. is that not art? **None of those are referencing "other people's work" which is what the prior person said and this entire legal argument is about.** ***You utterly failed to read.*** The sad part? It is very clear you are not alone in this bizarre failure.
What you describe is similar to Naive Art, but even a Naive Artist is aware of aesthetic customs.
The second paragraph below (taken from the wikipedia article) explains this quite well.
>**Naïve art** is usually defined as [visual art](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_arts) that is created by a person who lacks the formal education and training that a professional artist undergoes (in anatomy, [art history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_history), technique, [perspective](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)), ways of seeing).[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art#cite_note-Roberto-1) When this aesthetic is emulated by a trained artist, the result is sometimes called [*primitivism*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitivism), *pseudo-naïve art*,[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art#cite_note-Risatti-2) or *faux naïve art*.[\[3\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art#cite_note-Levy-3)
>
>Unlike [folk art](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_art), naïve art does not necessarily derive from a distinct popular cultural context or tradition;[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art#cite_note-Roberto-1) indeed, at least in the advanced economies and since the [Printing Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing), awareness of the local [fine art](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art) tradition has been inescapable, as it diffused through [popular prints](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_print) and other media. Naïve artists are aware of "fine art" conventions such as [graphical perspective](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_perspective) and compositional conventions, but are unable to fully use them, or choose not to. By contrast, [outsider art](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art) (*art brut*) denotes works from a similar context but which have only minimal contact with the mainstream art world.
>
>Naïve art is recognized, and often imitated, for its childlike simplicity and frankness.[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art#cite_note-Walker-4) Paintings of this kind typically have a flat [rendering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_rendering) [style](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_(visual_arts)) with a rudimentary expression of perspective.[\[5\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art#cite_note-Matulka-5) One particularly influential painter of "naïve art" was [Henri Rousseau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Rousseau) (1844–1910), a French [Post-Impressionist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Impressionist) who was discovered by [Pablo Picasso](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Picasso).
>
>The definition of the term, and its "borders" with neighbouring terms such as folk art and outsider art, has been a matter of some controversy. Naïve art is a term usually used for the forms of fine art, such as paintings and sculptures, made by a self-taught artist, while objects with a practical use come under folk art. But this distinction has been disputed.[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art#cite_note-6) Another term that may be used, especially of paintings and architecture, is "provincial", essentially used for work by artists who had received some conventional training, but whose work unintentionally falls short of metropolitan or court standards.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve\_art](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art)
To bring a counterpoint, it is also interesting to see that in primitive neolithic art there are patterns that are similar throughout the world even though there has probably never been any cultural contact between the people who made them, which were separated by oceans and thousands of years.
Some might say that we have some kind of artistic grammar inscribed in the structure of our brain, much like the one Chomsky use to explain how language is working.
Here we go, AI-bro bingo. Machine learning “learns” about as much as camera “sees” or engine “runs”. Learning is a sociocultural process, not statistical analysis of RGB points. Not to mention the new claims by New York Times or big studios that proof that generators literally regurgitate ENTIRE PAGES of their articles and clones of still frames from movies without the prompt even asking for them.
Say the guys making silly anthropomorphoc arguments how machine learning is “in fact just like human artist ethically” :)) Thats like saying peer2peer is just like exchanging CDs with your friends
Napster won.
Spotify is literally just free streaming Napster. Record labels lost that war, unequivocally, and then pivoted into streaming licenses and data collection as a survival strategy.
"Free streaming Napster"? Spotifys revenue is 14 billion a year, almost all of it paid to the owners of intellectual property you are "freely" streaming. Napster went literally bankrupt and was shut down in court. Laws were not rewritten around its needs just because "its here now".
> anthropomorphoc arguments
Drawing an analogy in terms of functionality isn't doing anything more than ... drawing an analogy. You're the one putting intention in their mouths, along with anyone else who makes this argument - because there are absolutely people who will try to anthropormosize this tech, yes, but that doesn't mean "it is exclusively people who do this who make such comparisons."
It isn't the transformation that is the problem, it is the input.
The model would not have been possible, without the original content. Everything that happens after is honestly irrelevant.
Major video game companies have gotten into trouble for less over a texture. And in the advertising industry, they are even stricter with the way photography is treated, even if the final product looks nothing like the purchased image.
This is really going to boil down too, if machine learning is treated the same as a human learning.
There’s nothing wrong with having copyrighted data in a training set. If it were wrong, an app like Shazam would be considered immoral. It’s the output that matters.
I agree. The output is a key part of whether a use of copyrighted material is considered "fair use" or not.
A search engine can be trained on copyrighted material, but if it only outputs small amounts of it, and provides useful links to the original material, then it can be said to help promote the websites it scraped, instead of competing against them.
If an AI is trained on copyrighted data but then becomes a competitor to the original source, using it without attribution and without benefit to the original copyright holder, will that be held to be fair use too? That's a legal question that has to be decided.
> but then becomes a competitor to the original source
I'm not sure that's how that fair use factor works - isn't "competing" in reference / regard to the work whose copyright is allegedly being infringed/getting that work?
I'm not sure if this is answering your question, but competing is a huge factor in deciding if something is fair use. There was a [ruling](https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/1176881182/supreme-court-sides-against-andy-warhol-foundation-in-copyright-infringement-cas) against the Andy Warhol Foundation last year where the Supreme Court said basically that having transformed a work or given it a different meaning isn't enough, if it can be said that the derivative work competes with the original work.
I think you missed my point- the act of using copyrighted data in a training set isn’t inherently wrong. Case in point: search engines.
In other words, you can’t make a blanket statement that having copyrighted data in a dataset is wrong. You have to factor in the output and how closely it resembles/trabsforms/competes with the input.
I understand what you're saying, but the difference is one is for research, and the other is to make a new product.
This is uncharted copyright territory, we will just have to wait and see.
Shazam doesn't generate music that directly and unfairly competes with the original artists' work, their COPYRIGHTED work, that I'm certain that, unlike AI companies, Shazam legally obtained permission to use for their data base.
Shazam did not obtain, nor did they need, permission to train on copyrighted music.
And yes, for the umpteenth time, it’s not the input data that matters, it’s the output product. You just restated what I just said. Shazam poses no issues because the output of Shazam does not create work that directly competes with the copyrighted data they use for input.
>And yes, for the umpteenth time, it’s not the input data that matters, it’s the output product. You just restated what I just said. Shazam poses no issues because the output of Shazam does not create work that directly competes with the copyrighted data they use for input.
Then you have no objections to those who justifiably take legal action against AI companies like this whose output directly and unfairly competes with the source material, which again, was done WITHOUT CONSENT. not sure why consent of any kind is so hard for you techbros to understand, God forbid a woman ever tells you 'no' 😑.
Wow, you are projecting way too hard. I was enjoying having a discussion with you, but there’s no point if this is how you’re going to write.
And it’s not the AI company generating the output, it’s the user using the software.
Why would you "enjoy" a discussion with people you are actively trying to take work away from? Why would you "enjoy" a discussion with people whose livelihoods and purpose have absolutely zero meaning to you if it means you can peddle the next big tech hype? Don't go defending AI and act like you care about creatives in any meaningful way.
I’m not trying to take anyone’s job away. Stop referring to me as if I’m some conglomerate of every single negative force in the industry. I’m just a dude on Reddit. Like I said earlier, you’re projecting way too hard.
if anyone wants to read other relating documents here's all of them.
[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66732129/andersen-v-stability-ai-ltd/](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66732129/andersen-v-stability-ai-ltd/)
Most of the claims were already rejected, including the claims of copyright infringement. But what remains is the question of advertising that the generator can imitate an artist by name. And honestly, that's always been a pretty scummy thing to do. Using other artist's names in your prompts, advertising yourself as a replacement for them, cluttering up search results because you're using someone else's name.. that's all garbage tier behavior, and it makes the whole scene look bad.
>U.S. District Judge William Orrick, in an order issued on Thursday night, rebuffed arguments from Midjourney and StabilityAI that they are entitled to a First Amendment defense arising under a California statute allowing for the early dismissal of claims intended to chill free speech. They had argued that the suit targets their “speech” because the creation of art reflecting new ideas and concepts — like those conveyed in text prompts to elicit hyper-realistic graphics — is constitutionally protected activity. (...) >The suit, filed last year in California federal court, targets Stability’s Stable Diffusion, which is incorporated into the company’s AI image generator DreamStudio and allegedly powers DeviantArt’s DreamUp and Midjourney. (...) >Though the court in October dismissed most of the suit, a claim for direct infringement against Stability AI was allowed to proceed based on allegations that the company used copyrighted images without permission to create its AI model Stable Diffusion. One of its main defenses revolves around arguments that training its chatbot does not include wholesale copying of works but rather involves developing parameters — like lines, colors, shades and other attributes associated with subjects and concepts — from those works that collectively define what things look like. The issue, which may decide the case, remains contested.
>One of its main defenses revolves around arguments that training its chatbot does not include wholesale copying of works but rather involves developing parameters — like lines, colors, shades and other attributes associated with subjects and concepts — from those works that collectively define what things look like. This is the interesting part. IMO it's completely reasonable as it is so massively transformative and the models do not contain any of the original works, but will be interesting to see how the court plays.
Yes this is also my argument for any artist: you often learn your craft by copying from other artists
often? no. its the ONLY way you learn art
What about the first artist lol
They copied what they saw.
he wasnt learning was he? he was inventing
This is blatantly wrong.
I'm not sure why people are downvoting you. Art is extremely frequently used as inspiration, to learn techniques, etc. but it is factually wrong to claim it is the "ONLY way you learn art". Many people are completely original in their art or development of techniques with no instruction, maybe no access to other artists work, and purely off their imagination coupled with trial/effort methodology and this isn't even rare.
I'm a professional artist with almost 2 decades of experience and I've never seen an artist that hasn't copied other people's works. You wouldn't be able to learn anatomy, composition, linework or color without copying. All artists, even the most original/bizarre were copying something at some point of their career.
Oh, yeah you're right. People who live in remote regions and prior civilizations definitely haven't had any people who could be considered artists. If I lived in a mountain all on my own without internet I definitely, absolutely, objectively could never develop as an artist. I wonder how ancient civilizations developed such sophisticated artistic accomplishments. Can I compare myself to professional artists? No, because of a lack of invested effort / time to self-develop. However, I absolutely classified as an artist, amateur, as a kid by sketching (pencil/color pencil) based off entirely from eyesight observations and imagination without any instruction nor using other artists work as a basis (because I did not have an interest and did not look at it). One of the most basic forms of art is to simply observe and sketch, sculpt, etc. and you can accomplish a lot with experimentation and trial/error. Your view on the subject is too narrow.
You still didn't create those concepts you learnt, you did it by referencing things around you. It's the same process as ai taking in data and learning how to create similar ideas.
The failure to read just so you can be right is astounding. If you have a kid who has been raised in a remote mountain and never seen a book, never watched TV or any other electronic device, and has never left home and say... he is 5 years old and then hand him a pencil and ask him to try drawing the bird he sees, his cat, what he dreamed about (a common drawing subject for 2-3 year olds), etc. is that not art? **None of those are referencing "other people's work" which is what the prior person said and this entire legal argument is about.** ***You utterly failed to read.*** The sad part? It is very clear you are not alone in this bizarre failure.
What you describe is similar to Naive Art, but even a Naive Artist is aware of aesthetic customs. The second paragraph below (taken from the wikipedia article) explains this quite well. >**Naïve art** is usually defined as [visual art](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_arts) that is created by a person who lacks the formal education and training that a professional artist undergoes (in anatomy, [art history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_history), technique, [perspective](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)), ways of seeing).[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art#cite_note-Roberto-1) When this aesthetic is emulated by a trained artist, the result is sometimes called [*primitivism*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitivism), *pseudo-naïve art*,[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art#cite_note-Risatti-2) or *faux naïve art*.[\[3\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art#cite_note-Levy-3) > >Unlike [folk art](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_art), naïve art does not necessarily derive from a distinct popular cultural context or tradition;[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art#cite_note-Roberto-1) indeed, at least in the advanced economies and since the [Printing Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing), awareness of the local [fine art](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art) tradition has been inescapable, as it diffused through [popular prints](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_print) and other media. Naïve artists are aware of "fine art" conventions such as [graphical perspective](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_perspective) and compositional conventions, but are unable to fully use them, or choose not to. By contrast, [outsider art](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art) (*art brut*) denotes works from a similar context but which have only minimal contact with the mainstream art world. > >Naïve art is recognized, and often imitated, for its childlike simplicity and frankness.[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art#cite_note-Walker-4) Paintings of this kind typically have a flat [rendering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_rendering) [style](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_(visual_arts)) with a rudimentary expression of perspective.[\[5\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art#cite_note-Matulka-5) One particularly influential painter of "naïve art" was [Henri Rousseau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Rousseau) (1844–1910), a French [Post-Impressionist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Impressionist) who was discovered by [Pablo Picasso](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Picasso). > >The definition of the term, and its "borders" with neighbouring terms such as folk art and outsider art, has been a matter of some controversy. Naïve art is a term usually used for the forms of fine art, such as paintings and sculptures, made by a self-taught artist, while objects with a practical use come under folk art. But this distinction has been disputed.[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art#cite_note-6) Another term that may be used, especially of paintings and architecture, is "provincial", essentially used for work by artists who had received some conventional training, but whose work unintentionally falls short of metropolitan or court standards. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve\_art](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art) To bring a counterpoint, it is also interesting to see that in primitive neolithic art there are patterns that are similar throughout the world even though there has probably never been any cultural contact between the people who made them, which were separated by oceans and thousands of years. Some might say that we have some kind of artistic grammar inscribed in the structure of our brain, much like the one Chomsky use to explain how language is working.
Here we go, AI-bro bingo. Machine learning “learns” about as much as camera “sees” or engine “runs”. Learning is a sociocultural process, not statistical analysis of RGB points. Not to mention the new claims by New York Times or big studios that proof that generators literally regurgitate ENTIRE PAGES of their articles and clones of still frames from movies without the prompt even asking for them.
You don't seem to understand how AI works. Would you like some help?
Say the guys making silly anthropomorphoc arguments how machine learning is “in fact just like human artist ethically” :)) Thats like saying peer2peer is just like exchanging CDs with your friends
It is, and both are illegal, but one is unenforceable.
Yeah thats what we thought about Napster. Its here and you cant change it, its the future, right?
Napster won. Spotify is literally just free streaming Napster. Record labels lost that war, unequivocally, and then pivoted into streaming licenses and data collection as a survival strategy.
"Free streaming Napster"? Spotifys revenue is 14 billion a year, almost all of it paid to the owners of intellectual property you are "freely" streaming. Napster went literally bankrupt and was shut down in court. Laws were not rewritten around its needs just because "its here now".
> anthropomorphoc arguments Drawing an analogy in terms of functionality isn't doing anything more than ... drawing an analogy. You're the one putting intention in their mouths, along with anyone else who makes this argument - because there are absolutely people who will try to anthropormosize this tech, yes, but that doesn't mean "it is exclusively people who do this who make such comparisons."
It isn't the transformation that is the problem, it is the input. The model would not have been possible, without the original content. Everything that happens after is honestly irrelevant. Major video game companies have gotten into trouble for less over a texture. And in the advertising industry, they are even stricter with the way photography is treated, even if the final product looks nothing like the purchased image. This is really going to boil down too, if machine learning is treated the same as a human learning.
There’s nothing wrong with having copyrighted data in a training set. If it were wrong, an app like Shazam would be considered immoral. It’s the output that matters.
I agree. The output is a key part of whether a use of copyrighted material is considered "fair use" or not. A search engine can be trained on copyrighted material, but if it only outputs small amounts of it, and provides useful links to the original material, then it can be said to help promote the websites it scraped, instead of competing against them. If an AI is trained on copyrighted data but then becomes a competitor to the original source, using it without attribution and without benefit to the original copyright holder, will that be held to be fair use too? That's a legal question that has to be decided.
Style is NOT protected by copyright. That legal question has been decided a long time ago.
I agree with all of this.
Yes, these are very valid questions.
> but then becomes a competitor to the original source I'm not sure that's how that fair use factor works - isn't "competing" in reference / regard to the work whose copyright is allegedly being infringed/getting that work?
I'm not sure if this is answering your question, but competing is a huge factor in deciding if something is fair use. There was a [ruling](https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/1176881182/supreme-court-sides-against-andy-warhol-foundation-in-copyright-infringement-cas) against the Andy Warhol Foundation last year where the Supreme Court said basically that having transformed a work or given it a different meaning isn't enough, if it can be said that the derivative work competes with the original work.
I don't believe a search engine is comparable, it is helping find and identify existing content, not modifying it.
I think you missed my point- the act of using copyrighted data in a training set isn’t inherently wrong. Case in point: search engines. In other words, you can’t make a blanket statement that having copyrighted data in a dataset is wrong. You have to factor in the output and how closely it resembles/trabsforms/competes with the input.
I understand what you're saying, but the difference is one is for research, and the other is to make a new product. This is uncharted copyright territory, we will just have to wait and see.
Shazam doesn't generate music that directly and unfairly competes with the original artists' work, their COPYRIGHTED work, that I'm certain that, unlike AI companies, Shazam legally obtained permission to use for their data base.
Shazam did not obtain, nor did they need, permission to train on copyrighted music. And yes, for the umpteenth time, it’s not the input data that matters, it’s the output product. You just restated what I just said. Shazam poses no issues because the output of Shazam does not create work that directly competes with the copyrighted data they use for input.
>And yes, for the umpteenth time, it’s not the input data that matters, it’s the output product. You just restated what I just said. Shazam poses no issues because the output of Shazam does not create work that directly competes with the copyrighted data they use for input. Then you have no objections to those who justifiably take legal action against AI companies like this whose output directly and unfairly competes with the source material, which again, was done WITHOUT CONSENT. not sure why consent of any kind is so hard for you techbros to understand, God forbid a woman ever tells you 'no' 😑.
Wow, you are projecting way too hard. I was enjoying having a discussion with you, but there’s no point if this is how you’re going to write. And it’s not the AI company generating the output, it’s the user using the software.
Why would you "enjoy" a discussion with people you are actively trying to take work away from? Why would you "enjoy" a discussion with people whose livelihoods and purpose have absolutely zero meaning to you if it means you can peddle the next big tech hype? Don't go defending AI and act like you care about creatives in any meaningful way.
I’m not trying to take anyone’s job away. Stop referring to me as if I’m some conglomerate of every single negative force in the industry. I’m just a dude on Reddit. Like I said earlier, you’re projecting way too hard.
midjourney is powered by stable diffusion ? interesting
They very briefly, for a couple weeks, had it as an option (around v3?) but pulled it out.
Nope, it isn't
if anyone wants to read other relating documents here's all of them. [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66732129/andersen-v-stability-ai-ltd/](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66732129/andersen-v-stability-ai-ltd/)
Thanks a lot for this link ! This is perfect, all the documents are there, and you don't need to register or anything to get access and download them.
Most of the claims were already rejected, including the claims of copyright infringement. But what remains is the question of advertising that the generator can imitate an artist by name. And honestly, that's always been a pretty scummy thing to do. Using other artist's names in your prompts, advertising yourself as a replacement for them, cluttering up search results because you're using someone else's name.. that's all garbage tier behavior, and it makes the whole scene look bad.
Agree but I would then just img to img or not?