@atrielienz let's look at writing computer code. LLMs used public copyrighted code to get really good at writing code blocks. That's like 85% of my job, but I don't care that they are making me obsolete because that means I can now spend more time figuring out how to do better science.

Artists should do the same. Anything that could be adequately created by thinking of a good text prompt should be done in 10 s and spend the rest of the time on hard creative stuff 🤷‍♀️

@atrielienz so you said it right here: "...can’t just get a copy of the training materials used by Julliard and reproduce those exactly."

They can't reproduce, but if Juliard posted their materials online for free, then the professor at the community college could look at those materials and use that to inform their own material selection.

You are muddling up a bunch of random side issues rather than addressing the principle issue: anyone at any company can view public information.

@atrielienz the reason they have to use specific licensed material is because they are charging rhe art student and therefore must pay for the materials they provide to the student.

But as a student, you can look at any public art you want and allow it to inform your work as long as you don't copy. So that's another example of the same principle: you must pay to reproduce/distribute someone else's art for money. So we come to the same point: no reproduction, but intake is allowed.

@atrielienz what I'm saying is that if the artwork is viewable in public, I have given the public license to hold that information in their brain and use it to influence their own output.

If a member of the public makes too similar of a replica then I can sue. We do not regulate the intake of public information into human storage/retrieval systems (brains) so why should we do that for synthetic ones?

We should only regulate the output to not reproduce art or an actors likeness etc.