Both cars and pedestrians can be videotaped in public, without asking for their explicit permission. That video can be manipulated by a computer to produce an artwork that is then put on public display. No compensation need be offered to anyone.

> Both cars and pedestrians can be videotaped in public, without asking for their explicit permission.

This is not universally true. Legislation is different from place to place.

Hardly the point. The same can be said for road rules between vehicles and pedestrians, for example in major Indian cities, it's pretty much a free-for-all.

My point is that in a lot of places in the US you can point a video camera at the street and record. In Germany, you can't. The law in some locales makes a distinction between manual recording (writing or drawing your surroundings) and mechanized recording (photographing or filming). Scalability of an action is taken into consideration on whether something is ok to do or not.

That has no bearing at all on the issue at hand. The same can be said of the original argument that started this thread.

You think scalability isn't relevant to the difference between a person doing something by hand or with software operating on the entire internet?

Yeah, that's the oddest part of many of the pro-AI arguments. They want to anthromopotize the idea of learning but also clearly understand that the scalability of a bot exceeds that of a human.

They also don't seem to have much experience in the artist world. An artist usually can't reproduce a picture from memory, and if they can they are subject to copyright infringement depending on what and how they depict it, even if the image isn't a complete copy. By this logic of "bots are humans" a bot should be subject if they make a Not-legally-disctinct-enough talking mouse