[RandomGerm4n]

Perhaps we should simply take this as an opportunity to finally abolish copyright. Smaller artists mainly earn their money with commissions. They are paid to do a very specific thing. Whether there is a copyright on the result is irrelevant. Someone else who would "steal" the image and use it without payment would apparently have fewer requirements. The person could have simply taken any AI image. Therefore, the artist in the scenario would not receive any money from the second person anyway.

Apart from this, it is mainly large companies that benefit from copyright laws. Why should we have laws that restrict progress just so large capitalist companies can maximize their profits?

[CaptainFever]

Exactly. All of these just exposes the absurdity that is copyright laws. It happened before with the Internet and online piracy too, when redistribution became free and easy, yet the corporations and copyright holders refused to budge so they can retain their profits.

[kayodelycaon]

Here’s what happens with no copyright:

No one will have any right to their own creations. Anything an individual makes will belong to everyone. And since no attribution is required, no one will know who made it. An average artist’s value to society goes from low to non-existent.

In this world. big corporations will take everything created, claim as their own, and profit from it.

Right now, big corporations using other peoples work unattributed or unlicensed is unethical, because copyright exists. Remove that, and it becomes expected that every thought and idea you express belongs to whoever can make the most profit from it.