Greg Rutkowski was removed from Stable Diffusion; AI artists brought him back
&gt; <i>“If he contacts me asking for removal, I&#x27;ll remove this.” Lykon said.</i><p>My interpretation of the article is that the entire reason this person created this was because the artist had objected to being in a generative model.  When the artist was removed from the popular generative model, this person created a model&#x2F;tuning specifically to put the artist back into one, and distributed it.  They seemed to do this well aware that the artist didn&#x27;t want to be in a generative model.<p>That sounds aggressively adversarial and abusive, and so the quote above sounds disingenuous.<p>Consider the analogy of a bully who is hitting a victim, and the bully demands that the victim ask the bully nicely to please stop.  Humiliating the victim, and making the victim acknowledge the bully&#x27;s power over them.  Also, this is only after much damage is already done to the victim.  And, in this case, after the bully has called over a mob to also beat the victim, and knowing that, even if the bully stops, the mob will continue.<p>The person in this case might not have the self-image of a bully, but is instead thinking of it as the usual Internet get-out-of-jail-free card: such as when you post someone else&#x27;s content, when you&#x27;re pretty sure they don&#x27;t want you to, and without even trying to get permission, but you think it&#x27;s all OK if you say &quot;I&#x27;ll take this down if they ask me to&quot;.  (Related: The YouTube copyright violation disclaimer &quot;I don&#x27;t own this!  All rights to the owner!&quot;, maybe even referencing the &quot;All rights reserved&quot; of a traditional copyright notice.)<p>Wherever you stand philosophically on copyright and related matters, and whatever jurisdiction and economic conditions you&#x27;re under, it&#x27;s maybe also helpful to consider the bullying question.  One can stray into that accidentally, and that&#x27;s harder to justify.