> Working in the software company in the day and preaching open source, anti copyright anti patents open access free for all
"Open source" is copyright - it's not anti-copyright. It uses copyright to grant a license to use under certain conditions, and sometimes with obligations. You might keep it proprietary, you might use GPL to require that the software stays open virally, or you might use a more permissive BSD-style license. The important part here is that as the creator, you choose how you want your work to by copyrighted.
Artists already get compensated for their work (...more or less)
Trainers should require consent from artists to train their model on an artist's work. A part of obtaining that consent could be some form of compensation and ideally credit when generating the images. I don't believe many artists are necessarily concerned about people copying their style. From what I've seen is they just don't want their artwork and their style sucked into the AI-borg to be reproduced en masse.
I do not think scraping images and using them to train models is fair use. I believe AI labs should obtain consent.
"Open source" is copyright - it's not anti-copyright. It uses copyright to grant a license to use under certain conditions, and sometimes with obligations. You might keep it proprietary, you might use GPL to require that the software stays open virally, or you might use a more permissive BSD-style license. The important part here is that as the creator, you choose how you want your work to by copyrighted.
[0]: best quickest link i could find that contains the "consent, credit, compensation" https://mindmatters.ai/2023/01/three-artists-launch-lawsuit-...