I asked up thread and people apparently have concerns about the IP and think that AI images often lack taste.

it's fascinating to see this resurgence of people who now like copyright/IP law

I don't know why it's that fascinating. Lots of people think some amount of copyright is reasonable but that life of the author + 70 years is far too long.

Meanwhile Adobe is in hot water for generating images in the style of Ansel Adams... https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/3/24170285/adobe-stock-ansel...

Adobe didn't generate them. Someone uploaded them to their stock photos site.

Nor was their issue that the images were in the style of Ansel Adams, but rather that they used his name. That's not a copyright issue. It's a trademark one.

Exactly, nuance is important. Short term protections are good, but companies shouldn’t be able to keep works from entering public domain for decades on end.

I was referring to the limitations of the feature which can only generate images in three pre-canned cartoony styles

I wonder if those are to avoid two of the big image generation controversies:

1. Imitation of artists' styles (Make an image in the style of...). The restricted styles are pretty generic, so harder to pin down as being a copy of or imitation of some artist.

2. It's cartoony, which avoids photorealistic but fake images being generated of real people.