| ▲ | armchairhacker a day ago |
| You're allowed to draw IP and share your drawings. You're allowed to screenshot and photoshop IP. You're allowed to sell tools that help others draw and photoshop IP*. You're not allowed to sell these drawings and photoshops. I don't see why an AI can't generate IP, even if the AI is being sold. What's not allowed is selling the generated IP. Style is even more permissive: you're allowed to sell something in any style. AFAIK the only things that can be restricted are methods to achieve the style (via patents), similar brands in similar service categories (via trademarks), and depictions of objects (via copyrights). Note that something being "the original" gives it an intrinsic popularity advantage, and someone being "the original creator" gives their new works an intrinsic advantage. I believe in attribution, which means that if someone recreates or closely derives another's art or style, they should point to the original**. With attribution, IP is much less important, because a recreation or spin-off must be significantly better to out-compete the original in popularity, and even then, it's extra success usually spills onto the original, making it more popular than it would be without the recreation or spin-off anyways. Old books, movies, and video games like Harry Potter, Star Wars, and Sonic have many "recreations" which copy all but their IP, and fan recreations which copy even that; yet they're far more popular than all the recreations, and when Warner Bros, Disney, or SEGA release a new installment, the new installment is far more popular too, simply because it's an original. * IANAL, maybe there are some technicalities, but in practice this is true. ** Or others can do it. As long as it shows up alongside their work, so people don't see the recreation or close derivation without knowing about the original. |
|
| ▲ | lmm a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| > You're allowed to draw IP and share your drawings. No you're not, not in general. The copyright holder has the exclusive right to prepare and distribute derivative works. > You're allowed to screenshot and photoshop IP. Again, no, not in general. > You're allowed to sell tools that help others draw and photoshop IP*. Sort of. You're allowed to sell tools that might be used for those purposes. You're not allowed to sell tools as "for that purpose" or advertise those use cases. |
| |
| ▲ | Smar a day ago | parent [-] | | I guess country of residence has a lot of relevance here... | | |
|
|
| ▲ | rescripting a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If I pay for ChatGPT and ask for copyrighted images, is that selling the generated IP? |
| |
| ▲ | imgabe a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The image the AI generates is not copyrighted (except maybe by OpenAI I guess) unless it ends up being an exact duplicate of an existing image. Copyright applies to a specific work. The character may be trademarked like Mickey Mouse, but that is a different IP protection. | | |
| ▲ | evdubs 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | "Substantially similar" is the standard, not "exact duplicate". |
| |
| ▲ | zelphirkalt a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I would argue yes, since the output is what you are probably after, when buying access to ChatGPT. | |
| ▲ | alphan0n a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You are responsible for the output, just like any other tool. If I use a copy machine to reproduce your copyrighted work, I am responsible for that infringement not Xerox. If I coax your novel out of my phones keyboard suggestion engine letter by letter, and publish it, it’s still me infringing on your copyright. If I make a copy of your clip art in Illustratator, is Adobe responsible? Etc. | | |
| ▲ | VanTheBrand a day ago | parent | next [-] | | What if the ceo of xerox went on social media and promoted copy machines by showing how you could use them for infringement? | | |
| ▲ | alphan0n a day ago | parent [-] | | Is that what is happening in reality? It seems that all of the big players in the industry are perfectly fine with disallowing output that infringes on copyright. |
| |
| ▲ | skydhash a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The analogies fail because the copyrighted material were not used for creating the copy machine, Illustration, or (maybe?) the keyboard suggestion engine. If LLMs were produced ethically, then the whole discussion is moot. But if the only way to produce copyrighted material requires being trained on copyrighted material, then... | | |
| ▲ | alphan0n a day ago | parent [-] | | Copyright law applies to distribution of output, not input. An artist, writer, whoever, could read all the copyrighted material in the world, even pirated material, unless their output is a copy or copyrighted artifact, then there is no infringement. | | |
| ▲ | philistine a day ago | parent [-] | | > even pirated material If you knowingly use pirated content for any purpose, that's not legal. | | |
| ▲ | alphan0n 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | Distribution of copyrighted material is prohibited. Reading, watching, listening, etc, it is not. A copyright holders tort is with the infringing distributor, not the end user. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Distribution of copyrighted material is prohibited. Copying without distribution is also an exclusive right under copyright -- the one for which the whole area of law is named -- and, as such, prohibited without a license or a specific exception in law. > Reading, watching, listening, etc, it is not. To the extent that reading, watching, listening, etc. involves copying, and that copying is neither explicitly licensed nor implicitly licensed by, e.g., a sale of copy where reading, watching, listening, etc., by means that inherently involve such an act of copying is clearly an intended use, is effectively prohibited because of the unauthorized copying involved. > A copyright holders tort is with the infringing distributor, not the end user. It is often with both, though the infringing distributor is (1) generally more likely to have ability to pay which makes tort action worth pursuing, (2) generally likely to be involved in more acts subject to liability increasing the tort liability, making tort action more worth pursuing, (3) less likely to be seen as a sympathetic figure by a jury should they invoke their right to a jury trial, (4) likely to be subject to greater liability per offense under the statutory damage alternative, even if the actual damages would be similar were that option pursued instead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | tjpnz 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >I don't see why an AI can't generate IP, even if the AI is being sold. What's not allowed is selling the generated IP. Where I live Studio Ghibli are known to be active on C2C marketplaces looking for counterfeit goods. If you were to list a home pressed Totoro pillowcase it would be taken down, sometimes proactively by the marketplace. From that perspective I struggle to see much discernable difference given OpenAI are offering a paid service which allows me to create similar items, and one could argue is promoting it too. |
|
| ▲ | 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
