| ▲ | Insimwytim 7 hours ago |
| The problem is not that ChatGPT is doing that, the problem is that it's not being sued into oblivion after. |
|
| ▲ | tavavex 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Doesn't suggesting that they should be sued into the oblivion automatically imply that the initial act was also, in fact, a problem? |
| |
| ▲ | kalleboo 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The former just implies a bad actor, the latter implies a broken system. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | BrenBarn 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'd say the problem is that the only way we seem to have to fix these situations is for someone to sue someone else. |
| |
|
| ▲ | 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | Razengan 24 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If I take one of the artist's real cartoons, open it in Photoshop, copy their signature, and paste it into another image, should Adobe be sued? (sorry not sorry for going against the bandwagon, let the downvotes as disagreement commence!) |
| |
| ▲ | darkoob12 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | If Adobe doing it automatically by default and the user that shares it has no idea then yes. They could have fixed this if they cared. | |
| ▲ | meander_water 21 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Adobe is not generating the image. AI models are generating the image Pretty simple. | | |
| ▲ | Razengan 17 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'd say AI "saw" the images separately, without "intent" to plagiarize, and I'm the one who [willfully] asked AI to combine them. You know in macOS there's the Automator app that can record keyboard+mouse macros: If I set up an automation to move my mouse just so that it copes an artist's signature and pastes it into multiple images, is that Apple's or Adobe's liability? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | bbor 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | GeorgeWBasic 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think laws against forgery have been around for quite some time, haven't they? | | |
| ▲ | bbor 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Forgery does not apply in the absence of fraud, and is thus a completely different concern. I appreciate your personal answer, nonetheless! It's clear which side of that dichotomy you land on, for better or worse. | | |
| ▲ | bergen 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It's clear which side of that dichotomy you land on, for better or worse. This is not a binary, you are boxing in a person you had no detailed conversation with |
|
| |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | heylook 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah man totally with you. We should outlaw gay marriage too. It's only been around for like 15 years. |
|
|
| ▲ | gruez 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | saghm 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you asked a studio musician to play a solo in the style of Jimi Hendrix, and then the producer tried to credit the guitar solo to Jimi Hendrix, I feel like we would all recognize that this is absolutely bananas and should not be allowed. | | | |
| ▲ | LocalH 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The signature can certainly be copyright protected, I would think? | | |
| ▲ | gruez 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Wikipedia doesn't think so, citing the US copyright office https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_P... | | |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Visual artists have a right of attribution via the Visual Artists Rights Act (17 U.S.C. § 106A). This includes protection against misattribution. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | >This includes protection against misattribution. What does the case law say on what counts as "misattribution"? If a paste the "BLOPER" signature onto a jpeg, did I commit a crime right then and there? What if I put a notice next to it saying "btw it's not actually Brendan Loper"? What if I took that image (with the notice), uploaded it for the whole world to see, then some guy cropped out the "btw it's not actually Brendan Loper"? | | |
| |
| ▲ | jdiff 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is true, it'd be a trademark issue if anything, not a copyright one. From this page: > it may be reproduced, as long as the reproduction cannot be mistaken for an authentic signature. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | >as long as the reproduction cannot be mistaken for an authentic signature. Which seems applicable in this case, because the image is clearly generated by AI (at least to the guy who prompted it). | | |
| ▲ | dwattttt an hour ago | parent [-] | | The guy who forges a signature isn't confused about who wrote that signature either. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | colechristensen 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There's a difference between reproducing a signature in an encyclopedia or in some way that makes it clear that you are recording the thing as it is. Putting a signature on a work is forgery and in most jurisdictions charged as fraud. If you produce an artwork in the style of someone and then clone the signature of someone who produces art in that style, there is a reasonable case for fraud. | | |
| ▲ | saghm 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, the references to copyright/trademark in this thread are confusing to me. I feel like there are much more straightforward legal arguments against falsely claiming artwork is by a famous artist. | |
| ▲ | quaverquaver 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | you have to sell it (or deceive for material gain) for it to be fraud. | | |
| ▲ | bergen 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You could argue that you did that to entertain your social media followers and gain more of them, which is somehow a material gain. | |
| ▲ | colechristensen 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | For starters people pay for ChatGPT accounts used to generate these things. Secondly people use ChatGPT to generate stuff they put up on social media slop accounts to earn money. You'd probably build a case by finding a collection of these to justify discovery for more and build your fraud case based on that kind of thing where people are generating and publishing work with your signature on it for money. That's both a criminal and civil case. |
| |
| ▲ | noncoml 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | When you are no-one, it’s fraud. “When you're famous they let you do it” |
| |
| ▲ | pigeons 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No but in the article he makes the explicit case that its the mark of his trade. | |
| ▲ | TZubiri 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | CopyRight isn't the relevant legal concept here at all. It's more of impersonation through a specifically protected identification mechanism. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | zombot 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Would you sue a hammer for hitting your thumb? You have to sue the one wielding it. |
| |
| ▲ | devsda 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You should atleast give it a thought if the same hammer refuses to hit certain people's thumb but will happily hit yours. | | |
| ▲ | Scapeghost an hour ago | parent [-] | | ChatGPT refuses to colorize private family photos if there's any Mickey Mouse comics in view. | | |
| |
| ▲ | smalltorch 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not a good analogy cause no one sues each other for little hammer injuries. It's more like the guy who gets wacked saying 'hey what the heck man that's my distinct hammer design but you made a machine that makes almost precisely my exact hammer and I hold a patent for this'...(or something like that) | | |
| ▲ | red75prime an hour ago | parent [-] | | "You've made a machine that can be easily tuned to produce almost precisely my exact hammer and people who use the machine get freaked out that I can sue them." |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dumbfounder 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Why would ChatGPT be sued exactly? They didn’t publish the picture, they did what the user asked. The user is responsible because they directed the creation and publishing. The user is the entity who should be sued. Or dmca’d. Or whatever. Think if the user commissioned the art from an outsourced creative shop nobody has heard of. Then they published it. They wouldn’t go after the creative shop, they would go after the publisher. (I am just addressing publishing here, training on the artist’s works is a different, well discussed issue) |
| |
| ▲ | jackvalentine 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Seems to me like producing an artist's stylised signature would be a trademark infringement. OpenAI give lip service to the idea of not producing others' intellectual property - go ask it to explicitly make a picture of the genie from Aladdin. | | |
| ▲ | StilesCrisis 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | https://openai.com/index/disney-sora-agreement/ | | | |
| ▲ | bbor 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is certainly not trademark infringement, I can say that for sure -- no reasonable person would prompt ChatGPT to create a "new yorker style cartoon" and then think the result is produced by the actual cartoonist in mere seconds for their viewing pleasure. So there's no confusion in the marketplace. The user could cause confusion in the marketplace of course, but that would be her doing, not the app's. Surely we can all agree that suing adobe illustrator for facilitating trademark infringement of logomarks and such would be silly? It could be copyright infringement, which should drive home how absurd copyright is as a concept. Everyone's all up in arms about Anthropic reporting a user to the police today -- imagine if the thing they were reporting was that she had written a sacred symbol in her personal notebook... | | |
| ▲ | Terr_ 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > no reasonable person would prompt ChatGPT to create [...] and then think the result is produced by the actual cartoonist There's also a narrower situation to consider, where the user describes something they "want"--implicitly to find--but the system generates a fraudulent one instead. In that case ChatGPT would be committing a trademark violation, at least within a nation of laws rather than lobbying. |
| |
| ▲ | 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | tonyhart7 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | well because Aladdin is public domain | | |
| ▲ | EA-3167 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The original story is, the Disney movie’s version isn’t. Edit: This sort of thing is common in Hollywood. For example James Bond (first book) hits public domain in ten years, but not all of the elements we associate with the movies are from there. Q and his gadgets are inventions of the movies and don’t enter public domain. There’s a reason patent/tm/copyright firms make money. |
|
| |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’s their hardware and their web response. Especially more heinous if it’s being served as part of a subscription. I don’t think it’s functionally the same as me opening Microsoft Paint and recreating pixel-for-pixel a New Yorker artist’s signature. | |
| ▲ | saghm 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't see that as a reasonable argument unless you're claiming the user was lying: > In the comments section of her post, she wrote she had simply asked ChatGPT to make “a New Yorker-style cartoon.” If you commissioned me to record music onto a CD for you, and then I put in the credits that Jimi Hendrix recorded the guitar parts without you asking, it seems pretty reasonable that I should get in trouble for that rather than you. |
|
