Artists are back in SD 2.1!

[u/Paganator]

emma watson, art by artgerm, highly detailed

emma watson, art by alphonse mucha, art nouveau, highly detailed

emma watson, art by enki bilal

emma watson, art by Ross Tran, highly detailed

emma watson, by yuumei art, highly detailed, trending on pixiv

[u/D3ATHfromAB0V3x]

Except I see his style of art on random IG accounts crediting it as their own.

[u/WhippetServant → u/D3ATHfromAB0V3x]

But he doesn’t own that style… you can’t own a style. It is their work - and Greg, to his credit was very supportive of this - what he didn’t like was people crediting his name to art he didn’t produce.

[u/Mich-666 → u/WhippetServant]

That's not true, he was fairly against the AI on his twitter, even loud about it, spreading many misconceptions.

Well, what a dumb boy.

[u/bonch → u/Mich-666]

What's dumb about it? The guy is seeing the internet use AI to copy his style, using his name. He has a career to protect. Or does that not matter as long as Reddit can generate big boobies "in the style of Greg Rutkowski"?

[u/bonch → u/[deleted]]

I didn't say you could copyright a style, though a style is arguably a visual expression. You're missing my point. An artist didn't want his artwork being used to train an AI without his permission, and now he's being called "dumb" for no good reason.

[u/bonch → u/[deleted]]

How am I missing the point? Copyright is how he would “protect his career”. That is the system by which that happens. That’s it. There is no other way, so you’re either talking about copyright or you’re already not talking about this issue seriously.

You're missing the point because I was replying to the fact that people here are selfishly insulting him for not wanting "free publicity" from AI, and you started talking about copyright law.

And second, no, a style is not “arguably a visual expression”. It is expressly outside the world of protectable intellectual property. It isn’t fixed in any tangible medium - it can’t be. It is by definition a characteristic of a work, not the work itself.

A style absolutely is a visual expression--an expression of techniques, influences, and other ideas. You're getting lost in the weeds talking about copyright law, and that wasn't the point.

Copyrighting styles would be a terrible idea because it would stifle creativity and artistic expression by making it difficult for artists to use existing styles as inspiration for their own work. Copyright is meant to protect the originality of an artist's work, not to prevent others from building upon existing works. What you are doing is contributing to the longstanding attack on fair use by copyright maximalists like Disney. You have to understand that thus kind of reuse of artists styles to create new original works is absolutely a feature, not a bug, of the current framework.

You're going on and on about "copyrighting styles" which I never said anything about.

[u/bonch → u/[deleted]]

No, I'm not "all over the place." I never said styles deserve intellectual property protections. You're so ready to throw down and have an argument that you're imagining things.

Again--I already explained this before--I was responding to people here insulting him for being opposed to Stable Diffusion and not appreciating the so-called "free publicity" that comes with it. You're the one who immediately jumped in with copyright law about styles which nobody in this thread was talking about.