WildWestDesigns
Active Member
If I'm not mistaken, something along these lines actually been brought up in the courts before. Even with pictures that car owners had taken of their car and shared etc and if those pictures are of copyright machinary that is owned by the vendors or not. And the actual camera taken pictures are probably going to be more of an issue compared to a drawn picture (unless we are talking about a technical drawing), if talking about getting everything 1:1.If I draw a picture of a car, even if I'm only using my memory of a car, it is still, IMHO, a derivative of a copyrighted piece of machinery.
Irony is that it may not actually be covered, but because the people that would be crying about it have such deep pockets, that it's hard to go against them even if they don't have a case.
To give an idea of some of my concern, we have this here.
I'm pretty sure that this has happened with other artwork as well, with artist's signatures on the resulted picture as well, not just something like a stock site.The Getty lawsuit is probably a slam dunk, parts of their watermark were even found embedded in some AI generated art, that suit alone will have a major impact.
The open source example already has some lawsuits if I'm not mistaken related due to licensing. Also some have pointed out that if it's pulling from repos, don't actually know if those are public or private repo's as well. Especially now considering that linked article that I gave. They may not be pulling from a repo hosting site, but still using some group's proprietary code.