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.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
5 points

Because the original Joker design is not just something that occurred in nature, out of nowhere. It was created by another artist(s) who don’t get credit or compensation for their work.

When YouTube “essayists” cobble script together by copy pasting paragraphs and changing some words around and then then earn money off the end product with zero attribution, we all agree it’s wrong. Corporations doing the same to images are no different.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

But of course you can’t turn around and sell that picture of the Joker that you made. That’s obvious.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The problem in here is that while the Joker is a pretty recognizable cultural icon, somebody using an AI may have genuinely original idea for an image that just happens to have been independently developed by someone before. As a result, the AI can produce an image that’s a copy or close reproduction of an original artwork without disclosing its similarity to the source material. The new “author” then will unknowingly rip off the original.

The prompts to reproduce joker and other superhero movies were quite specific, but asking for “Animated Sponge” is pretty innocent. It is not unthinkable that someone may not be familiar with Mr. Squarepants and think they developed an original character using AI

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That’s a good point. Musicians have been known to accidentally reproduce the same beat as another musician (was is done subconsciously or just coincidence?). Some books are strikingly similar to other books that it makes you wonder if it was a rip off or just coincidence. So it’s nothing new, but it may become more prevalent with AI. This could spawn a new industry of investigators ensuring your AI generated art isn’t infringing on any copyrights 🤔

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

This might be the best point I’ve seen around this topic – have not seen this addressed before.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It’s on the person using any AI tools to verify that they aren’t infringing on anything if they try to market/sell something generated by these tools.

That goes for using ChatGPT just as much as it goes for Midjourney/Dall-E 3, tools that create music, etc.

And you’re absolutely right, this is going to be a problem more and more for anyone using AI Tools and I’m curious to see how that will factor in to future lawsuits.

I could see some new factor for fair use being raised in court, or else taking this into account under one of the pre-existing factors.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Tons of human made art isn’t inspired by nature. Rather it’s inspired by other human made art. Neural networks don’t just copy paste like a yt plagiarist. You can ask an AI to plagiarize but no guarantee it’ll get it right.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I think the problem is that you cannot ask AI not to plagiarize. I love the potential of AI and use it a lot in my sketching and ideation work. I am very wary of publicly publishing a lot of it though, since, especially recently, the models seem to be more and more at ease producing ethically questionable content.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That’s an interesting point. We’re forced to make a judgement call because we don’t have total control over what it generates.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

you aren’t making any sense. people did fanarts and memes of the joker movie like crazy, they were all over the internet. there are tons and tons of fan arts of copyrighted material.

they fall under fair use and no one losses money because fan arts can’t be used for commercial purposes, that would fall outside fair use and copyright holders will sue, of course.

how is that different from the AI generating an image containing copyrighted material? if someone started generating images of the joker and then selling them, yeah, sue the fuck out of them. but generating it without any commercial purpose is not illegal at all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

In many cases the AI company is “selling you” the image by making users pay for the use of the generator. Sure, there are free options, too - but just giving you an example.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

With that line of argument you can sue developers of 2d painting programmes and producers of graphics tablets. And producers of canvas, brushes and paint. Maybe even the landlord for renting out a studio? It’s all means of production.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

So you watched that Hbomberguy video where he randomly tacked on being wrong about AI in every way, using unsourced, uncited claims that have nothing to do with Somerton or that Illuminaughti chick and will age extremely poorly and made that your entire worldview? Okay

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Actually no, but thanks for letting me know, I like his content.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 18K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 507K

    Comments