Post #2471972

2025-12-28 19:42 UTC

I wasn't going to log in to verify either lol. Even if that's the case, it will come down to fair use policy which will allow quite a lot. If the specific instance of sharing isn't fair use and Twitter allows it, then sue them, someone will. Reddit for example though is just littered with modified images and they've been fine. Same with Lemmy. Edit: If someone starts trying to make money off modified images via Grok, then that becomes a much easier case to win.

Replies (2)

@inconel@lemmy.ca 2025-12-28 20:00

Many artists explicitly state no repost without their permission, requiring proper credits and such. It IS a dick move to AIgen-fed edit while directly interacting author's post; that makes people using the AI feature violating author's will knowingly. In reality, people don't read artists' comment or bio, when "single button to AIgen and use the art as prompt" exists. It's basically X greenlits anyone to do so against artists' will, and fair use can argue the use of art but never force artists to stay on a platform. That's what's happening. They may have overstayed on a horrible platform blinded by clout they can get there but that is a different story.

Open ##2471973
@brucethemoose@lemmy.world 2025-12-29 00:38

> If someone starts trying to make money off modified images via Grok, then that becomes a much easier case to win. They can use it to farm engagement. Is that the same thing? And yeah, that's the icky part. This is a dream for spammers and "cheap SEO" types who don't really care about copyright law in this context.

Open ##2646780