If some cases of fan-art without permission is fine then some cases of ai art usage is fine without permission
I actually agree with this; most fan art is made with generally innocent, non-profit driven intents. Likewise, in the early days, as I tried to make clear in my overly long ramble, generative AI was a generally innocent, non-profit scientific endeavor. Certainly, there were probably bad faith actors who were looking for ways to sell "computer what does art" even in the beginning, but there are also bad faith actors in fan art circles. However, that isn't really what today's AI is used for; it's not innocent and profit driven.
By the way for anyone reading, I might post a general opinion about this cancel culture problem when it comes to healthy debating.
I actually agree with this; most fan art is made with generally innocent, non-profit driven intents. Likewise, in the early days, as I tried to make clear in my overly long ramble, generative AI was a generally innocent, non-profit scientific endeavor. Certainly, there were probably bad faith actors who were looking for ways to sell "computer what does art" even in the beginning, but there are also bad faith actors in fan art circles. However, that isn't really what today's AI is used for; it's not innocent and profit driven.
That's fine, I think we're good, here.