> I think the jurors would be aware (or at least acceptive) of the notion that describing a picture using words does not create a derived work.

Describing to a human.

Describing it to stable Diffusion is very different. If you ask for a starry night, you get van Gogh's starry night, sometime with the original frame.

A prompt can easily trigger it to make a derivative work from something in its training set, and it often does.

Any competent expert will tell that to the jury and easily demonstrate it again and again.

My point is that if there is a prompt that results in a picture that is a nearly identical copy, the average jury member is going to think "yep, that's a copy".

Trying to explain how that "isn't really a copy" by explaining AI concepts isn't going to win the day, not when they can SEE the copy.

If the textual description in and of itself is already "not a copy", though, the question of whether the image produced from that textual description is a copy shouldn't arise, no? It's not like the jury is ruling on random questions; they're going to give answers to whatever the judge puts in front of them.