They are using artist’s work to enable users of their software to create an image in the “style” of that artist.
A person spends years of effort to develop their own style. If that is taken without their permission, it’s not good. Just like any form of intellectual property, copyright, or patent.
But I suppose if you’re in the school of “If you’re not shoveling shit for a living, you don’t have a real job”, these notions may be lost on you.
A person spends years of effort to develop their own style. If that is taken without their permission, it’s not good. Just like any form of intellectual property, copyright, or patent.
But I suppose if you’re in the school of “If you’re not shoveling shit for a living, you don’t have a real job”, these notions may be lost on you.
—
Wow I guess you never studied art history. There are whole schools of art where the artist copied each other’s style.
You can not copyright “style”.
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-art-copyright-explained
But even still originally copyrights and patents provided the creators with a few years to benefit from their creation, after that time it moves into public domain.
The reason for the time limit is because the founders wanted others to build on original work. That is how societies advance.
As far as trying to read my mind or assign motives to my post, well I have learn to not argue with people that resort to profanity and name calling.
(PS I am not a lawyer or an artist although in my youth I took up oil painting for a few years and after awhile decided the spirit was willing but I had no talent)
I see what happened: I responded to tghe wrong post’ I meant to respond to the one immediately after yours. My fault. I have difficulties with my eyesight.