/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6896934
>Styles should be copyrightable.
Good job, you just gave corporations and criminals the keys to art.
>be company
>hire artist once
>or use AI
>generate pictures endlessly until something that can be seen as original and pass the copyright screening is made
>copyright anything you can
>any other private person/indipendent creator/company even coming remotely close to your copyrighted style is liable to cease&desist, sued for any damages or getting their work removed.
>"did you just make big eyes? well, you shit outta luck, buckarro. pay up lol"
>anyone else can't copyright their work if grifters already copyrighted everything they could
As usual, most don't understand that there are very clear set rules on whether something can be copyrighted, considered copyright infringement or fair use for that matter.

As long as say; You draw a piece in a known style of known characters, that work is your intellectual property, you can't copyright that in the first place, but it is indeed YOUR work, that you made, IF you made it.
It can be considered fair use and not be liable to a copyright infringement claim IF:
>the artist did the work
>the work is transformative
>it doesn't compete with the original source or claim to be official art to sell
But you can sell a work that has copyrighted characters IF it is indeed a transformative work of YOUR making, and not just printed out from a rng machine.
The nature of generated pictures already makes anything it produces, not able to receive copyright or intellectually property rights, but it can be accused of plagiarism and copyright/intellectual rights infringement because of how it operates.

This samdoeskitsch did work at disney though
And sure, his work is low effort and panders to teenagers and kiddies, but at least he makes the work himself so he has a right to whatever he makes, even if reminiscent of knowns styles.

>>6831647

>>6720109

"learn"

>>6717925
>>6717941
>>6717958

>>6717332

>>6700956

>>6703845