Maybe your intention with this comment was more noble, but it’s full of typos/autocorrect and odd tense (I wasnt going to be paid?) that make it very difficult to follow?
But from what I can read, your position is that the burden of proof for fraud is on the audience and not the person creating the deceptive work? I don’t agree. And if I start a business, I need to hold trademark for my logo and patents for my novel designs and utilities - SO THAT I DEFEND MYSELF WHEN CHALLENGED.
Why isn’t your assertion that OP should need to provide proof that their work is original OR openly label it as AI (theft). Again, in this case OP is working to pass this off as original work (as you can see by them literally taking extra time to watermark their counterfeit work).
Maybe your intention with this comment was more noble, but it’s full of typos/autocorrect and odd tense (I wasnt going to be paid?) that make it very difficult to follow?
But from what I can read, your position is that the burden of proof for fraud is on the audience and not the person creating the deceptive work? I don’t agree. And if I start a business, I need to hold trademark for my logo and patents for my novel designs and utilities - SO THAT I DEFEND MYSELF WHEN CHALLENGED.
Why isn’t your assertion that OP should need to provide proof that their work is original OR openly label it as AI (theft). Again, in this case OP is working to pass this off as original work (as you can see by them literally taking extra time to watermark their counterfeit work).