> Training a model on a bunch of images by {artist}, and then telling it "Generate me 20 images in the style of {artist}" seems pretty close to this ruling.

No, it's not close at all. Did you look at the images in question for the ruling? Warhol's picture is very clearly a tracing of the photograph. Unless you're using the AI to generate an almost-exact copy of one of the training images, this ruling does not apply.

The decision is not an infringement decision. AWF did not dispute the finding that the images are substantially similar.

> The decision is not an infringement decision

> Supreme Court rules Andy Warhol’s Prince art is copyright infringement

And fair use is the main exemption to copyright, and that was decided here.

No it wasn't decided there. There is no analysis as to whether the image is infringing or not and it's not even a debate, because the warhol foundation admitted the pictures were substantially similar.

Even better for AI, then, if the supreme court was divided on whether such a small change is a valid use even with similarity assumed.

I think it would need to be a bit more than just that.

If you have a Picaso style advertisement for Ford its probably transformative w.r.t. any of Picaso's works since none of them as-is could be used for that advertisement. There's no way Picaso painted any Ford motor vehicles.

As well as if you used those imagery as an example of the generative capabilities the originals wouldn't suit that purpose. Or if you had a collection of AI generated art then the originals also wouldn't work.

> Training a model on a bunch of images by {artist}, and then telling it "Generate me 20 images in the style of {artist}" seems pretty close to this ruling.

Maybe, but that is not how dalle and other generative AI work right now it is trained on a huge number artists and images. Not just mixing and matching from images from one artist even if you ask for something in one artists style. Generated an images that falls under copyright seems possible, but automatic.