I think they are arguing that using disney stuff as training data would be the infringement, and if the logo showed up in generated images, that would be proof they did that.
But I’m guessing because it is phrased weird if they meant that. Idk.
Seems like the lawyer thinks that AI models deliberately jumble the Disney logo rather than specific text/artifact/logo generation just being a weakness of these types of models. (He’s wrong, he’s attributing intent to something janky/buggy)
I think they are arguing that using disney stuff as training data would be the infringement, and if the logo showed up in generated images, that would be proof they did that.
But I’m guessing because it is phrased weird if they meant that. Idk.
Seems like the lawyer thinks that AI models deliberately jumble the Disney logo rather than specific text/artifact/logo generation just being a weakness of these types of models. (He’s wrong, he’s attributing intent to something janky/buggy)
That is always a dumb argument. People are also „trained“ by watching at the logo. You want to remove the logo from the world?
Haha, let’s not be silly. Everyone in the world just needs to pay for the logo! Individually as well as the collective.
Then we train 🥷
People have rights machines don’t.