Does a photo/image that generated/modified by a human-being using photoshop got protected by copyright? I think previously someone does this...

▲

whartung an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Year ago, there was a painter, Thomas Kinkade, the "Painter of light".

He became a bit of a pop phenomenon, with stores dedicated to selling high quality prints of his works.

And one of the things, so I'm told, that could happen, was that you could buy one of his prints, but someone at the store, an artist, would dab some paint onto the print. Add some "light" to it.

Obviously this is a commercial endeavor, so I doubt the provenance of the rights holder was in doubt (such as through an employment agreement).

But it's, perhaps, an interesting case study about who owns what in a time of augmented and manipulated media.

	▲	mysterydip an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I believe those are called “embellishments”, and they’re semi-common as a way to make a print “unique”, but still cost way less than the original the print was copied from. From the couple artists I talked to about them, their students do these at their studios, rather than the artist themselves.

▲

harimau777 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes it does because there's is still direct control from a human. When working with LLMs, even interactive prompting does not provide that level of control.