> As the images are generated by an AI, they are non-copyrightable and are therefore public domain.
I find this claim on the "about page" quite interesting. Some of those images might be so close to the training data that the copyright protection for fictional characters becomes relevant, even if the image is not identical. This is visible in this topic as people recognize characters from popular-culture (video-games or movies), because the training data seems to also contain fanart.
This is the whole conundrum of creation and copyright. Every creative work is protected by copyright yet every creative work is the sum of unconscious derivations to varying degrees of something an author has perceived, creative works existing ex nihilo are at best vanishingly rare; personally I'm not even sure they exist, I'm leaning more towards we're just mistaking unusually big jumps of derivations/combinations of those for ex nihilo creative works. We readily recognise "influences" of great artists (whether it is music, literature, painting...).
Doesn't mean creative work should not be protected, but drawing the line of infringing vs not is by definition extremely blurry and subjective.
AIUI, copyright holds for a specific fixed expression. So if an artist drew a face that looks incredibly like yours, the artist would hold the copyright over that drawing, but have no claim over your face.
I find this claim on the "about page" quite interesting. Some of those images might be so close to the training data that the copyright protection for fictional characters becomes relevant, even if the image is not identical. This is visible in this topic as people recognize characters from popular-culture (video-games or movies), because the training data seems to also contain fanart.