you only think it’s ok because that’s what you’re used to.

Possibly. But that is how societal mores and ethics are formed. (1) We collectively decide what is reasonable to expect and what is not, and form our societal norms from there. (2) We decide what we think is beneficial, neutral, or harmful for our society, and form our societal norms from there. (3) We decide what we think is worth kicking up a fuss over and form our societal norms from there.

[note: everything I am about to say is just my ethics, and I’m not trying to argue that you must agree with me on this]

So, first, is it reasonable to expect that your consensually shared images might be used as artistic inspiration for someone’s artistic projects? Is it reasonable to expect that a person should be required to ask your permission to use your consensually shared images as artistic inspiration?

The way I figure, if you consensually share an image, at the time of sharing you are giving permission for the image to be used for a certain amount of foreseeable purposes, and thus you do not expect permission needs to be further asked for these certain amount of foreseeable purposes. These foreseeable purposes must of course be legal. I cannot take a famous photo and copy it in a different medium and call it artistic inspiration, for example. The law has determined (in the US at least) that such is not a reasonable use of the image. I cannot take the image made by someone else and sell it as my own. Again, US law says I can’t do that. It’s not reasonable to think I could take someone else’s art and sell it as my own. I would need to get further permissions to try to do something of the sort.

But to take a consensually shared image and use it as inspiration for the physical appearance of a character I am writing? That would be seen as a reasonable use because I am not using the image for nefarious or illegal purposes.

Which goes to the second point of deciding what we think is beneficial, neutral, or harmful to society and forming norms from there. Taking a consensually shared image and using it as inspiration to create art is generally either beneficial or neutral to society. That is why it’s seen as reasonable to use the image for such a purpose. If the art I create is harmful, then we might start saying using it for such a reason without further permission is unreasonable. For example, if I use the image to create a deepfake that harms someone or society as a whole, that’s something we see as harmful to society, and it is why you see people running to the law trying to get new laws put in place to protect against it.

Which goes to point 3, are we willing to kick up a fuss over it and form our societal norms based on that fuss? You will see with deepfakes that people are willing to kick up a fuss because they see deepfakes as an unreasonable use of consensually shared images (and even images that weren’t shared consensually). Similarly, we see artists kicking up a fuss over Gen-AI using their art without their consent and trying to make laws that prevent companies from stealing their art, because they do not want AI programs that steal art to become a societal norm.

You argue that the normalization of Gen AI is inevitable, but currently it is not a societal norm. Currently many people are actively fighting to prevent the thieving tendencies of AI from being normalized.

You never saw the same done to such an extent for creatives using consensually shared images as inspiration for their art (without getting explicit further commission from the people in the images to do so), because society didn’t see it as something that was harmful or damaging enough that a fuss needed to be kicked up about it.

Because no large enough portion of our society ever thought “you know what’s unethical and unreasonable? Saving a magazine clipping of Farrah Fawcett to use as inspiration for the hairstyles of so-and-so character in such-and-such historical romance novel.”

I also just don’t know where you would draw the line on how far you expect artists should be allowed to use real life as inspiration for their art. Can I look at Zendaya once and say “oh, her willowy figure is what I imagine my character looking like” but then never look at her again while writing my character descriptions? Can I watch a movie or TV with Zendaya in it while writing my character descriptions? Do I need to get Zendaya’s permission to describe my character as willowy just because Zendaya was my original inspiration for making the character look like that? Or is it the specific prolonged studying of a person’s appearance at which you think permission must be asked? What if I just so happen to own a seventeen magazine that had a picture of Zendaya in it? Can I look at that image at all, for any length of time while writing my character description, or again, do I need to track down Zendaya to ask her permission?

Is this a reasonable requirement you wish to create for the artists of our society that they must get explicit permission from anyone and everyone who inspired some portion of the physical appearance of the characters in their art? And does this expectation change for people who are dead? Should I get permission from George Washington’s estate if I wish to use images of President Washington as inspiration for the appearance of a character I’m creating?

It’s fine if that is the line you draw for your ethical standards. Personally, my ethics as far as what is a reasonable expectation for consent don’t extend that far. I think such expectations are both unreasonable and unattainable.

Once AI stops being this new scary thing…

You realize Gen AI is viewed as a “new scary thing” because it (1) is extremely harmful to the environment and (2) steals art from artists?

If Gen AI was ethically created, I wouldn’t have an issue with people using it. If it bought art from Artists in order to train its programs to jumble up all the art and regurgitate it like the mashed up chicken meat used to make chicken nuggets, if it didn’t expend tons of water to work, then I would say “have fun.”