Eh... I don't know. It sounds to me like you are saying because the code example outputs exact lines, it's a copyright violation; but the image AI's necessarily don't output exact copies of even portions of pre-existing images, that's not how they work.
But I don't think copyright on visual images actually works like that, that it needs to be an exact copy to infringe.
If I draw my own pictures of Mickey Mouse and Goofy having a tea party, it's still a copyright infringement if it is substantially similar to copyright depictions of mickey mouse and goofy. (subject to fair use defenses; I'm allowed to do what would otherwise have been a copyright infringement if it meets a fair use defense, which is also not cut and dry, but if it's, say, a parody it's likely to be fair use. There is probably a legal argument that Copilot is fair use.... the more money Github makes on it, the harder it is though, but making money off something is not relevant to whether it's a copyright violation in the first place, but is to fair use defense).
(yes, it might also be a trademark infringement; but there's a reason Disney is so concerned with copyright on mickey expiring, and it's not that they think there's lots of money to be spent on selling copies of the specific Steamboat Willy movie...)
> There is actually no percentage by which you must change an image to avoid copyright infringement. While some say that you have to change 10-30% of a copyrighted work to avoid infringement, that has been proven to be a myth. The standard is whether the artworks are “substantially similar,” or a “substantial part” has been changed, which of course is subjective.
For those curious about the standards for fair sue in US copyright law, and how they have been considered in previous caess, here's one legal overview:
This AI re-mixing stuff is so new, I think few legal observers would say they could definitely predict what the courts will do with it. Nobody really knew how the Google Books case, for instance, was going to go until it went.
But I don't think copyright on visual images actually works like that, that it needs to be an exact copy to infringe.
If I draw my own pictures of Mickey Mouse and Goofy having a tea party, it's still a copyright infringement if it is substantially similar to copyright depictions of mickey mouse and goofy. (subject to fair use defenses; I'm allowed to do what would otherwise have been a copyright infringement if it meets a fair use defense, which is also not cut and dry, but if it's, say, a parody it's likely to be fair use. There is probably a legal argument that Copilot is fair use.... the more money Github makes on it, the harder it is though, but making money off something is not relevant to whether it's a copyright violation in the first place, but is to fair use defense).
(yes, it might also be a trademark infringement; but there's a reason Disney is so concerned with copyright on mickey expiring, and it's not that they think there's lots of money to be spent on selling copies of the specific Steamboat Willy movie...)
> There is actually no percentage by which you must change an image to avoid copyright infringement. While some say that you have to change 10-30% of a copyrighted work to avoid infringement, that has been proven to be a myth. The standard is whether the artworks are “substantially similar,” or a “substantial part” has been changed, which of course is subjective.
https://www.epgdlaw.com/how-can-my-artwork-steer-clear-of-co...
I think Stable Diffusion etc are quite capable of creating art that is "substantially similar" to pre-existing art.