GEN-05 · Style theft tabletop

Analyze one published controversy about style mimicry or unauthorized stylistic imitation involving generative tools, then propose studio rules that would have changed the outcome for your program — without reproducing the disputed works.

One documented public controversy with citable reporting or primary statements (artist statement, platform policy update, court filing summary from reputable coverage). No recreation of the contested outputs. Studio-rules draft aimed at your program’s actual tools.

Picking a controversy for vibes rather than documentation. Re-generating the style “to understand it.” Writing rules that only bind students and ignore what teachers demo. Declaring a legal winner from news coverage alone.

A case brief: facts with dates and sources; what each party claimed; what your program’s proposed rules would require before a similar assignment; and an explicit list of legal conclusions you are not qualified to make.

CT: separating documented fact from online pile-on. CR: choosing a case with a paper trail. CO: peer checks citations. CM: the studio-rules page. CZ: the artist whose style was targeted.

Arts teacher or media-law-aware adviser reviews the non-claim list. Standing instruction: reject regenerated mimicry and reject courtroom certainty from blogs. School-supervised.

R1: one case, one program. R2: every factual claim cited. R3: comparator is current studio practice. R4: uncertainty labeled. R5: rules are actionable Monday. R6: non-claim list is the point.

(a) Hot take, no sources. (b) Student ships a mimic “example.”

Lane A immediately. Strong writing-heavy option. No verified credit claim.