Adobe is not generating the image.

AI models are generating the image

Pretty simple.

I'd say AI "saw" the images separately, without "intent" to plagiarize, and I'm the one who [willfully] asked AI to combine them.

You know in macOS there's the Automator app that can record keyboard+mouse macros:

If I set up an automation to move my mouse just so that it copies an artist's signature from a Photoshop window and pastes it into multiple images, is that Apple's or Adobe's liability?

▲

meander_water 31 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Sure, but you the user also didn't indend to plagiarize, yet that was the end result. And it was a direct result of plagiarized data from the training set.

▲

soco 29 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

So you actually agree with us here: you set up an automation, or set up an AI, to plagiarize. You (automation), and OpenAI (AI set up), are correctly being sued. Because none of you thought "do it New Yorker style" also means "do it legally". And no, legality is not optional - even for techbros.

	▲	Razengan 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> And no, legality is not optional As some other people mentioned, AI refuses to enhance private photos if they HAPPEN TO contain Disney material etc. If my own, personal, private photo happens to contain an image or toy or whatever of Mickey Mouse somewhere in a TINY corner of the photo, does that count as plagiarism? What if I'm asking AI to work on a photo of some sidewalk café that includes a person in the background reading a newspaper, with its comics section visible which exposes the signatures of several artists? No one anywhere would say that's intentional plagiarism. Intent matters in legality - even for suebros.