@freakazoid I don't think this makes any precedent. The entire case is stupid (literally a dispute between two social media accounts), the defendant is stupid (admits to inadvertent infringement, only disputes the damage requested because "AI work is cheap"), the reasoning is stupid (the court reproduced the image according to the plaintiff's process but did not detail how they came up with the prompt, and then said long enough prompt constitutes original effort)...
@freakazoid If this does make a precedent, then by extension AI prompts and seeds can be copyrighted, which is legally unsound. The court just doesn't seem to have any practical understanding of the current AI...
@freakazoid I don't think this makes any precedent. The entire case is stupid (literally a dispute between two social media accounts), the defendant is stupid (admits to inadvertent infringement, only disputes the damage requested because "AI work is cheap"), the reasoning is stupid (the court reproduced the image according to the plaintiff's process but did not detail how they came up with the prompt, and then said long enough prompt constitutes original effort)...
