⸻ ⸻
- Perlod: Two artists move in a text box
For months I have seen AI boom from bleach – equal parts are attractive and panic.
Then I made some things in the pigeon, the explosion, and found out that the sky did not fall.
My friend Kai, a brilliant, neurodeversion artist and fellow creators who are with the opposition’s conversation style, just look at the apocalypse.
Kai: “Ai is an industrial scale theft … The creative class is designed to separate Corporate profits from its capabilities.”
Me: “Tell this thought – let’s open it.”
⸻ ⸻
2. The charging sheet of Kai
The main center of Kai’s critics, is in their own (edited) words:
1. “The artists are losing the clients to free the AI.”
2.
3. “There is no moral way to use the stolen tool.”
4. “It is flooding the world with garbage and creativity.”
⸻ ⸻
3. My counter -story: to fear of fear
I started where Kai is now – speed, ethics, worried about the job market.
Then I tried the tools. Instead of eliminating my deer, they:
Id Increases my theoretical speed (thumbnail sketch in seconds)
My own skill sets up (I’m not a painter, but I can indicate like a poet)
FROM FROM HUDS ATTENTION TO HOLD ARRIVAL ARRIVILEGES ON FACT HIMBERS
⸻ ⸻
4. Legal landscape (July 2025 Snap Shot)
• No court – to date – no court has ruled that training on publicly available data is just a copyright violation.
• The UK’s legislature against stability has left only its headline “training” claim. Only secondary issues remain.
• US judges recently supported Entropic and other AI firms, reinforcing that online content can be consumed under fair use.
• The wider battle of the get out of the Gaiti, and the artists’ class measures (eg, Anderson vs stability AI) are still alive-so the law is restless, but a slam is away from the “stolen” rhetoric.
⸻ ⸻
5. Point by point rejected
Kai claim: Damage of clients = stolen
Checking reality: interruption ≠ theft. When photography emerged, portrait painters were released. There are many promoters. Markets are ready.
Kai’s claim: Scarchen is equivalent to theft
Checking Fact: Copyright Shields Expression, Not Expression Information. Creating a model reading pixels is legally equivalent to a student studying a gallery – change, not a duplicate.
Kai claim: No moral use
Checking reality: ethics ≠ binary. Artists now license their portfolios on closed weight models. Some firms pay royalty in every production. The choice is between “all or nothing”.
Claims of Kai: Floods Floods
Checking reality: The true-effort content is present everywhere. This is also true – good work increases, especially when a human being is.
⸻ ⸻
6. Why does the dialogue break
Kai has called me “Indicated NPC”. I face judicial decisions and life experience.
But under the rhetoric is fear: losing identity, income and creative sovereignty.
Tech talk existence cannot calm the fear – which contains sketch book jam on sympathy, time and perhaps coffee.
⸻ ⸻
7. Where I landed
AI is not a death sentence for artists. This is a power tool.
Power tools can make or make masterpieces. The result depends on:
1. Clear law (yes, we need it)
2. Artist Focus Business Model (License, Revenue Shares)
3. Creative is willing to experience instead of barracks
Until then, I will continue to use tech morally, transparently – and invite Kai (and you) to test, adapt, question, repeat.
“It is not theft to be influenced by public art. If it were, every art student in history would have been guilty.”
⸻ ⸻
8. Call for measuring curiosity
If you are auxy, try the tool before hitting.
If you are an AI observer, listen to people who feel dangerous. Just the facts will not eliminate the space.
In any way, pixels are out of the bag. Let’s paint wisely.
Are ideas, sources, or spicy deniers? Leave them in comments – only civil talks.
My nervous network and I are listening.
⸻ ⸻
Sources and References
1. Getty images vs stability AI, UK action – Gaiti dropped claims of basic “training” in favor of secondary IP issues (2024).
2. US Copyright Office AI Guidance – March 2023 and 2024 updates clarify that copyright is formed (www.copyright.gov).
3. Anderson vs Stability AI – The ongoing class action case by artists in the United States, discussing the unauthorized use of copyright content for training.
4. Fair use theory – US Copyright Act, 17 USC § 107, which is described as a key factor.
5. European Parliament Report on Generative AI – 2023 AI training, copyright, and insights about moral boundaries.
6. Stability AI, Openi, and Anthropic transparency documents (see official websites).
7. Legal comments through Harvard Law Review, Stanford Codex, The Verge (2023 – 2025).
⸻ ⸻
About the writer
Michael spent 20 years as a respiratory physician, running a family, running organic farm, and traveling all over the United States and abroad. Today, he lives on the road and works on what he customs, helps design and adapt everything from the power system to creative projects using AI. Its work eliminates the distance between hands -on skills and emerging technology.