Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.

We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.::Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        Because they aren’t doing anything to violate copyright themselves. You might, but that’s different. AI art is created by the software. Supposedly it’s original art. This article shows it is not.

        • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          11·
          11 months ago

          It is original art, even the images in question have differences, but it’s ultimately on the user to ensure they do not use copyrighted material commercially, same as with fanart.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            11 months ago

            If I draw a very close picture to a screenshot of a Mickey Mouse cartoon and try to pass it off as original art because there are a handful of differences, I don’t think most people would buy it.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                11 months ago

                It has relevance to what counts as an original artwork.

                This is what you said:

                It is original art, even the images in question have differences

                No it is not. They do not have enough differences to be considered original in any court of law.

                • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                  11·
                  11 months ago

                  ???

                  If I ask for an image of Joaquin Phoenix as The Joker from the movie The Joker, then yes it will not be original.

                  If I ask for original drawings off original ideas it will be original.

                  Therefore AI can be used for both.

                  Therefore the technology itself is not infringing, but only specific uses of it are, same as with a VCR, an HDD and our very brains. This should be obvious, and NYT knows it’s going to lose and that’s why they are now developing their own model. This case is just to stall the industry until old money corpos can catch up to avoid being disrupted out of existence. It has zero legal ground

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    11 months ago

                    Again, VCRs and hard drives can’t create content. They can only capture content. AI can create content, but it is not always original. Which is the problem. No one is trying to sue them over things that are credibly original.

                    It is no more legal for you to tell an AI to make you a picture of the Joker as it is to ask a human artist to do it. And if the human artist did it, WB/DC would be within their rights to take them to court because it would violate both trademark and copyright. They usually don’t, but they are within their rights.

                    You can ask a VCR or a hard drive to draw you a picture of The Joker all day. They won’t because they can’t.

                    If AI was only capable of creating original artworks, this would not be an issue.