- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
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.
Why does that matter?
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.
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.
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.
What relevance does this have to AI?
It has relevance to what counts as an original artwork.
This is what you said:
No it is not. They do not have enough differences to be considered original in any court of law.
???
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
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.
There is no difference, a camcorder creates content, but it doesn’t mean they’re banned just because you can film a film with one.
Yes I agree, it is not legal to replicate copyrighted works regardless.
But again, human artists aren’t illegal just because they can infringe copyright in a hypothetical scenario. Same with AI. The machine is non-infringing, the prompt operator can infringe copyright if they try, and then they are responsible under law, same as a human artist would be.
The machine is blameless regardless of what it was trained on.