No one is necessarily saying that you owe Van Gogh a cut. What they _are_ saying is not to claim that you didn't train on Van Gogh or to pretend that you don't know what you practiced on.
But the controversy over Stable Diffusion is whether they owe the human artists a cut or not, right?
> What they _are_ saying is not to claim that you didn't train on Van Gogh
Stable Diffusion is definitely not claiming that it didn't train on human artists.
The controversy of Stable Diffusion is attribution. I could not care less about receiving a cut. Rather, I want my life's work in pushing particular style further than anyone has before to be recognized primarily so the next artist can trace the lineage and improve upon it.
> Stable Diffusion is definitely not claiming that it didn't train on human artists.
Stable diffusion claims that attribution is not important because "all artists copy each other".
Should every HN comment I write include a full list of everything I've ever read? What about a commercial work like a book, should that include a list of everything I've read or heard in the past 35 years of my life? That's a lot of attribution to keep track of ...
edit: I guess my question is where does derivativity end and creativity begin?
What Stable Diffusion does is effectively say "it doesn't matter how this was made" for every single artifact it creates, providing neither attribution nor acknowledgement. This happens even when it's clearly been influenced by, and in some cases is directly copying, elements or a whole of a very small set of highly influential inputs.
If a human author did that, people would probably be upset, if not outright accuse them of plagiarism.